Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty For Primary Pelvic Ureteric Junction Obstruction: A Prospective Single Centre Study

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes among open pyeloplasty (OP) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) patients.Materials and methodsThis was a prospective single centre, case-cohort study conducted in a tertiary care hospital with 62 patients. In both techniques, dismembered Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty were undertaken. Post-operatively patients underwent visual analogue scale (VAS) assessment for pain, days to ambulation and comparison of the short- and long-term outcomes of the two procedures.ResultsThere was no difference in the physical and functional outcomes between the two surgical approaches at 12 months period after surgery. However, patients in the laparoscopic group did report a higher rate of satisfaction at six weeks and six months' postoperatively.Likewise, patients in LP experienced less pain during the postoperative period (p-value <0.001), with decreased analgesic requirements. This translated into an early patient ambulation in the laparoscopic group (p-value <0.001), and a shorter hospital stay for the LP group (p-value <0.001). Moreover, follow-up ultrasound showed equal improvement of hydronephrosis among the two groups.ConclusionLaparoscopic and open pyeloplasty are equally effective in treating pelvic ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO), with comparable patient-reported outcomes at 12-month follow-up. However, the laparoscopic technique merits over open surgery with faster rehabilitation, a decreased postoperative pain experience and shorter hospital stay.