Chen W N, Ye X J, Liu S J, Xiong L L, Huang X B, Xu T, Wang X F
Department of Urology, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China.
Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2016 Oct 18;48(5):817-821.
To compare various data of open pyeloplasty, laparoscopic pyeloplasty and endopyelotomy as a treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), and to investigate and discuss the feasibility and effect of the three methods.
In the study, 109 cases of UPJO treated by different surgical approaches in Peking University People's Hospital from January 2004 to December 2014 were retrospectively investigated. The patients were divided into three groups according to the treatment they received: open peyloplasty group (32 cases), laparoscopic peyloplasty group (31 cases) and endopyelotomy group (46 cases).We compared the data of the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative complications and post-operative hospital stay among the three groups. The mean follow-up time was(51.9±40.1) months (6-132 months).
None of the laparoscopic peyloplties was converted to open peyloplasty. All endpyelotomies were successfully completed. The operative time was as follows: laparoscopic peyloplasty group (195.97±55.22) min, open peyloplasty group (121.19±33.95) min and endopyelotomy group (74.04±33.95) min,and there were significant differences among the three groups respectively(P<0.001). There was no significant difference on the operative blood loss between open peyloplasty group and laparoscopic peyloplasty group (P=0.163). The operative blood loss of endopyelotomy group was 5(0,310)mL,which was lower than the other two groups, and this result had significant differences with the other two groups respectively(P<0.001). There were significant differences on the post-operative hospital stay (days) among open peyloplasty group, laparoscopic peyloplasty group and endopeylotomy group (P<0.05,respectively).The success rate was comparable between open peyloplasty group and laparoscopic peyloplasty group( 93.8% vs. 90.3%, P=0.672), while the endopeylotomy group had a lower success rate compared with both open surgery group and laparoscopic group(69.6% vs. 93.8%, P=0.01; 69.6% vs. 90.3%, P=0.048, respectively). The complication rates of open peyloplasty group, laparoscopic peyloplasty group and endopeylotomy group were comparable(15.6%, 16.1% and 13.0%, respectively, P>0.05).
The laparoscopic peyloplasty group had a longer operative time than open peyloplasty group, while its post-operative stay was shorter. There was no significant difference on the operative blood loss between open peyloplasty group and laparoscopic peyloplasty group. Although the success rate of endopyelotomy was lower than those of the other two groups, it had advantages over the aspect of operative time, operative blood loss and post operative stay.
