OBJECTIVE: To compare both approaches of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, transperitoneal vs retroperitoneoscopy. METHODS: A total of 65 procedures were performed in 62 patients, 36 females and 26 males. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with Anderson Hynes technique was performed transperitoneal in 34 cases and retroperitoneal in 31 cases. Parameters studied were the operative duration, the rate of conversion to open approach, transposition of crossing vessel, complications and reintervention, results, and the duration of hospitalization. Then, overall success rate for both approaches was evaluated in the presence or absence of crossing vessels, and if transposition of crossing vessel was performed vs without. RESULTS: The overall success rate for both procedures was 85% (87% for the retroperitoneal vs 82% for the transperitoneal approach). The mean operative duration was 231.69 ± 59.97 and 194.76 ± 25.37 minutes for the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, respectively (P = .029). The rate of conversion was 19.35% (6 of 31) and 2.9% (1 of 34) for the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, respectively (P = .047). No significant statistical difference was noted between both techniques related to the age of patient, the hospital stay, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Transposition of crossing vessel had no effect on the results (81.25% with transposition and 80% if not, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneoscopic approach is associated with longer operative time and more conversion rate than transperitoneoscopy. However, the overall outcomes of laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty vs retroperitoneoscopic were comparable.
OBJECTIVE: To compare both approaches of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, transperitoneal vs retroperitoneoscopy. METHODS: A total of 65 procedures were performed in 62 patients, 36 females and 26 males. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with Anderson Hynes technique was performed transperitoneal in 34 cases and retroperitoneal in 31 cases. Parameters studied were the operative duration, the rate of conversion to open approach, transposition of crossing vessel, complications and reintervention, results, and the duration of hospitalization. Then, overall success rate for both approaches was evaluated in the presence or absence of crossing vessels, and if transposition of crossing vessel was performed vs without. RESULTS: The overall success rate for both procedures was 85% (87% for the retroperitoneal vs 82% for the transperitoneal approach). The mean operative duration was 231.69 ± 59.97 and 194.76 ± 25.37 minutes for the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, respectively (P = .029). The rate of conversion was 19.35% (6 of 31) and 2.9% (1 of 34) for the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, respectively (P = .047). No significant statistical difference was noted between both techniques related to the age of patient, the hospital stay, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Transposition of crossing vessel had no effect on the results (81.25% with transposition and 80% if not, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneoscopic approach is associated with longer operative time and more conversion rate than transperitoneoscopy. However, the overall outcomes of laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty vs retroperitoneoscopic were comparable.