PURPOSE: We performed a meta-analysis of published series of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty. We compared these data to open pyeloplasty at our institution using diuretic renography as the indicator for obstruction and postoperative success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic studies included 19 series published between 1995 and 2007 comprising 346 kidneys. Open pyeloplasty studies included 9 series published between 1998 and 2007 comprising 486 kidneys. Data from our institution included records for 213 patients (224 kidneys). We defined reoperative intervention as unplanned placement of a nephrostomy tube or ureteral stent, balloon dilation or redo pyeloplasty. RESULTS: In the laparoscopic studies 171 cases (49%) were evaluated by preoperative and 137 (40%) by postoperative diuretic renography. Of patients undergoing postoperative diuretic renography 10 (7%) underwent reoperative intervention, including redo pyeloplasty (6, 4%), nephrostomy (3, 2%) and balloon dilation (1, 1%). In the open pyeloplasty studies performed elsewhere 165 cases (34%) were evaluated by preoperative and 230 (47%) by postoperative diuretic renography. Of patients undergoing postoperative diuretic renography redo pyeloplasty was required in 3 (1%). Of 224 cases managed by open pyeloplasty at our institution 215 (96%) had preoperative and postoperative diuretic renography data available. Of these patients 7 (3%) underwent reoperative intervention, including redo pyeloplasty (4, 2%), ureteral stent (2, 1%) and nephrostomy (1, 0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most publications do not confirm preoperative obstruction or, following laparoscopic or open pyeloplasty, postoperative success via diuretic renography. While not statistically significant, in the minority of studies with postoperative diuretic renography results the reoperative intervention rate and redo pyeloplasty rate following laparoscopy are approximately double those of open pyeloplasty.
PURPOSE: We performed a meta-analysis of published series of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty. We compared these data to open pyeloplasty at our institution using diuretic renography as the indicator for obstruction and postoperative success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic studies included 19 series published between 1995 and 2007 comprising 346 kidneys. Open pyeloplasty studies included 9 series published between 1998 and 2007 comprising 486 kidneys. Data from our institution included records for 213 patients (224 kidneys). We defined reoperative intervention as unplanned placement of a nephrostomy tube or ureteral stent, balloon dilation or redo pyeloplasty. RESULTS: In the laparoscopic studies 171 cases (49%) were evaluated by preoperative and 137 (40%) by postoperative diuretic renography. Of patients undergoing postoperative diuretic renography 10 (7%) underwent reoperative intervention, including redo pyeloplasty (6, 4%), nephrostomy (3, 2%) and balloon dilation (1, 1%). In the open pyeloplasty studies performed elsewhere 165 cases (34%) were evaluated by preoperative and 230 (47%) by postoperative diuretic renography. Of patients undergoing postoperative diuretic renography redo pyeloplasty was required in 3 (1%). Of 224 cases managed by open pyeloplasty at our institution 215 (96%) had preoperative and postoperative diuretic renography data available. Of these patients 7 (3%) underwent reoperative intervention, including redo pyeloplasty (4, 2%), ureteral stent (2, 1%) and nephrostomy (1, 0.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Most publications do not confirm preoperative obstruction or, following laparoscopic or open pyeloplasty, postoperative success via diuretic renography. While not statistically significant, in the minority of studies with postoperative diuretic renography results the reoperative intervention rate and redo pyeloplasty rate following laparoscopy are approximately double those of open pyeloplasty.
Authors: Mohamed Gadelmoula; Mohammad S Abdel-Kader; Mahmoud Shalaby; Mostafa Abdelrazek; Ahmed Mohamed Moeen; Mohamed Ali Zarzour; Nasreldin Mohammed; Paolo Fornara Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2018-08-20
Authors: Wojciech Panek; Jakub Szmer; Caroline F Kuijper; Rafal Chrzan Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 1.195