Users Online : 204 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 ¤   Next article
 ¤   Previous article
 ¤   Table of Contents

 ¤   Similar in PUBMED
 ¤  Search Pubmed for
 ¤  Search in Google Scholar for
 ¤Related articles
 ¤   Citation Manager
 ¤   Access Statistics
 ¤   Reader Comments
 ¤   Email Alert *
 ¤   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5828    
    Printed226    
    Emailed5    
    PDF Downloaded320    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 22    

Recommend this journal

 

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2008  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 76-79

Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years


Department of Urology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Kolkata, India

Correspondence Address:
Punit Bansal
Department of Urology, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, 242 AJC Bose Road, Kolkata- 700 020
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Read associated Retraction Notice: Retraction Notice with this article

DOI: 10.4103/0972-9941.43091

Clinical trial registration None

Rights and Permissions

Background: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) causes hydronephrosis and progressive renal impairment may ensue if left uncorrected. Open pyeloplasty remains the standard against which new technique must be compared. We compared laparoscopic (LP) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in a randomized prospective trial. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized study was done from January 2004 to January 2007 in which a total of 28 laparoscopic and 34 open pyeloplasty were done. All laparoscopic pyeloplasties were performed transperitoneally. Standard open Anderson Hynes pyeloplasty, spiral flap or VY plasty was done depending on anatomic consideration. Patients were followed with DTPA scan at three months and IVP at six months. Perioperative parameters including operative time, analgesic use, hospital stay, and complication and success rates were compared. Results: Mean total operative time with stent placement in LP group was 244.2 min (188-300 min) compared to 122 min (100-140 min) in OP group. Compared to OP group, the post operative diclofenac requirement was significantly less in LP group (mean 107.14 mg) and OP group required mean of (682.35 mg). The duration of analgesic requirement was also significantly less in LP group. The postoperative hospital stay in LP was mean 3.14 Days (2-7 days) significantly less than the open group mean of 8.29 days (7-11 days). Conclusion: LP has a minimal level of morbidity and short hospital stay compared to open approach. Although, laparoscopic pyeloplasty has the disadvantages of longer operative time and requires significant skill of intracorporeal knotting but it is here to stay and represents an emerging standard of care.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF Not available]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

© 2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04