Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Retroperitoneal pyeloplasty (<i>RP</i>) was thought to be associated with fewer possible complications than the transperitoneal approach (<i>TP</i>); however, <i>TP</i> offers larger working space and an easier anastomosis, anterior to crossing lower pole vessels, when present. In <i>TP</i>, the peritoneum can be easily reconstructed back, and cosmesis is nearly similar. We reviewed our experience with <i>RP</i> and <i>TP</i> in comparison with the classic open extra/retroperitoneal approach (<i>OP</i>).</p> Material and methods <p>Data from 156 cases who had&#xa0;pyeloplasty were reviewed: <i>TP</i>: 40 consecutive cases (27 over 5 years&#xa0;old, 13 under 5 years old&#xa0;and 3 under 1 year&#xa0;old;&#xa0;youngest&#xa0;-&#xa0;5 months old), including 3 redo/revision cases; <i>RP</i>: 56 consecutive primary cases, all over 5 years of age; and <i>OP</i>: 60 primary cases (41 over 5 years&#xa0;old, 19 under 5 years&#xa0;old, and 9 under 1 year&#xa0;old;&#xa0;youngest&#xa0;-&#xa0;3 months old). Operation time, conversion rate, and complications were all compared. Unpaired <i>t</i>-test and chi-square test were used, and <i>p &lt; 0.05</i> was considered significant.</p> Results <p>There were no intraperitoneal surgical complications such as organ injury or bowel adhesions with <i>TP</i>. <i>TP</i> was operatively shorter than <i>RP</i> (230.4 ± 29 vs. 249.8 ± 46 min, <i>p</i> = 0.0036). The conversion rate was lower in <i>TP</i> than in <i>RP</i> [1/40 (2.5%) vs. 3/56 (5%), <i>p</i> = 0.380]. There was neither a difference in hospital stays (both 3 days) nor a statistically significant difference in postoperative complications requiring intervention as <i>JJ</i> stenting, balloon dilatation, and redo/revision pyeloplasty [<i>TP</i>: 4/40 (10%) vs. <i>RP</i>: 4/56 (7%), <i>p</i> = 0.6003, and vs. <i>OP</i>: 5/60 (8%), <i>p</i> = 0.7308)].</p> Conclusion <p><i>TP</i> is safe, effective, and relatively shorter than <i>RP</i> and suitable for much younger patients and redo/revision pyeloplasties. Transperitoneal pyeloplasty remains a viable and justifiable option for developing and aspiring paediatric surgeons and urologists.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparison of the laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty to the extraperitoneal open and retroperitoneoscopic approaches in children: technical aspects and early outcomes from a developing practice

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月9日

查看全文
  • Mahmoud Marei Marei,
  • Supul Hennayake,
  • Tamás Cserni

摘要

Introduction

Retroperitoneal pyeloplasty (RP) was thought to be associated with fewer possible complications than the transperitoneal approach (TP); however, TP offers larger working space and an easier anastomosis, anterior to crossing lower pole vessels, when present. In TP, the peritoneum can be easily reconstructed back, and cosmesis is nearly similar. We reviewed our experience with RP and TP in comparison with the classic open extra/retroperitoneal approach (OP).

Material and methods

Data from 156 cases who had pyeloplasty were reviewed: TP: 40 consecutive cases (27 over 5 years old, 13 under 5 years old and 3 under 1 year old; youngest - 5 months old), including 3 redo/revision cases; RP: 56 consecutive primary cases, all over 5 years of age; and OP: 60 primary cases (41 over 5 years old, 19 under 5 years old, and 9 under 1 year old; youngest - 3 months old). Operation time, conversion rate, and complications were all compared. Unpaired t-test and chi-square test were used, and p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

There were no intraperitoneal surgical complications such as organ injury or bowel adhesions with TP. TP was operatively shorter than RP (230.4 ± 29 vs. 249.8 ± 46 min, p = 0.0036). The conversion rate was lower in TP than in RP [1/40 (2.5%) vs. 3/56 (5%), p = 0.380]. There was neither a difference in hospital stays (both 3 days) nor a statistically significant difference in postoperative complications requiring intervention as JJ stenting, balloon dilatation, and redo/revision pyeloplasty [TP: 4/40 (10%) vs. RP: 4/56 (7%), p = 0.6003, and vs. OP: 5/60 (8%), p = 0.7308)].

Conclusion

TP is safe, effective, and relatively shorter than RP and suitable for much younger patients and redo/revision pyeloplasties. Transperitoneal pyeloplasty remains a viable and justifiable option for developing and aspiring paediatric surgeons and urologists.