OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential benefits of laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty over conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. METHODS:Between October 2009 and January 2012, 39 patients were enrolled in a prospective study and randomized to undergo a laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty (n = 19) or conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (n = 20). The outcomes in the two groups were compared by using Mann-Whitney U-test and χ(2) -test, and considering a P-value less than 0.05 as statistically significant. RESULTS: There was no difference in blood loss (55.67 ± 6.71 vs 45.84 ± 5.22 mL, P = 0.60), transfusion rates (0% for both) and hospitalization time (2.12 ± 0.23 vs 2.06 ± 0.34 days, P = 0.72) between the laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty groups. The time to return to normal activities was shorter (8.65 ± 1.25 vs 11.53 ± 1.28 days, P = 0.01), and median operative time (195.21 ± 12.15 vs 145.62 ± 15.34 min, P = 0.001) was longer in the laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty group compared with the conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty group. No significant intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred in either group. Compared with conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty, laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty yielded better cosmetic results and patient satisfaction. The mean follow-up period was 19.7 months (4-28 months). The success rate was 95% in both the groups. Both the visual analog scale and the postoperative use of analgesics were significantly lower in patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty can offer faster recovery and higher patient satisfaction than conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Thus, this novel technique promises to become the treatment of choice in minimally-invasive management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential benefits of laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty over conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. METHODS: Between October 2009 and January 2012, 39 patients were enrolled in a prospective study and randomized to undergo a laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty (n = 19) or conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (n = 20). The outcomes in the two groups were compared by using Mann-Whitney U-test and χ(2) -test, and considering a P-value less than 0.05 as statistically significant. RESULTS: There was no difference in blood loss (55.67 ± 6.71 vs 45.84 ± 5.22 mL, P = 0.60), transfusion rates (0% for both) and hospitalization time (2.12 ± 0.23 vs 2.06 ± 0.34 days, P = 0.72) between the laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty groups. The time to return to normal activities was shorter (8.65 ± 1.25 vs 11.53 ± 1.28 days, P = 0.01), and median operative time (195.21 ± 12.15 vs 145.62 ± 15.34 min, P = 0.001) was longer in the laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty group compared with the conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty group. No significant intraoperative or postoperative complications occurred in either group. Compared with conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty, laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty yielded better cosmetic results and patient satisfaction. The mean follow-up period was 19.7 months (4-28 months). The success rate was 95% in both the groups. Both the visual analog scale and the postoperative use of analgesics were significantly lower in patients who underwent laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty can offer faster recovery and higher patient satisfaction than conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Thus, this novel technique promises to become the treatment of choice in minimally-invasive management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.