Purpose: To report postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patients' subjective evaluations of open pyeloplasty (OP) and retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty (RP) and influences on preoperative counselling. Methods: 107 patients (age 16-80 years, mean 31.5) with symptomatic primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction who underwent OP (32) or RP (75) were evaluated prospectively. HRQoL was evaluated using Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires with 1 year follow-up. Operative outcomes were evaluated using a self-designed questionnaire regarding cosmetic outcomes, objective postoperative/current pain, convalescence and return to work. Results: The mean operative time was 174.4 vs. 161.4 min for RP versus OP, respectively, without intraoperative complications/conversions. There was an advantage for RP - except for two domains - without significance in any of the eight SF-36 domain scores. An advantage favouring RP in all aspects of the second questionnaire with significance in four aspects (cosmetic results, scar length, pain and convalescence) was found. Five weeks postoperatively, 58.7% (RP) vs. 25.8% (OP) were fully convalescent compared to 87.0% (RP) vs. 71.0% (OP) at 8 weeks. Similarly, 58.7 vs. 45.1% returned work 5 weeks postoperatively while 93.5 vs. 74.2% did so after 8 weeks, respectively. The small sample size, more questions on satisfaction/regret and mixed design are the main study limitations. Conclusion: RP provides the same functional results beside earlier convalescence, better HRQoL and patients' convenience with surgery, which favours its inclusion in preoperative counselling providing patients with realistic postoperative expectations.

Keywords:
Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty, Pyeloplasty, Ureteropelvic junction obstruction, Open pyeloplasty
1.
Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW, Moore RG: Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 1995;46:791-795.
2.
Murphy LJT: The kidney; in Murphy LJT (ed): The History of Urology. Springfield, Charles C. Thomas, 1972, pp 201-232.
3.
Kavoussi LR, Peters CA: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993;150:1891-1894.
4.
Singh O, Gupta SS, Hastir A, Arvind NK: Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: experience with 142 cases in a high-volume center. J Endourol 2010;24:1431-1434.
5.
Chuanyu S, Guowei X, Ke X, Qiang D, Yuanfang Z: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty in treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (report of 150 cases). Urology 2009;74:1036-1040.
6.
Rassweiler JJ, Seemann O, Frede T, Henkel TO, Alken P: Retroperitoneoscopy: experience with 200 cases. J Urol 1998;160:1265-1269.
7.
Ben Slama MR, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Cicco A, Saint F, Alame W, Antiphon P, Chopin DK, Abbou CC: Extraperitoneal laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: initial experience in 15 cases. Urology 2000;56:45-48.
8.
Bachmann A, Ruszat R, Forster T, Eberli D, Zimmermann M, Müller A, Gasser TC, Sulser T, Wyler S: Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): solving the technical difficulties. Eur Urol 2006;49:264-272.
9.
Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, Aigrain Y, El-Ghoneimi A: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J Urol 2005;173:1710-1713.
10.
Wyler SF, Bachmann A, Casella R, Gasser T, Sulser T: Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Endourol 2004;18:948-951.
11.
Tan BJ, Rastinehad AR, Marcovich R, Smith AD, Lee BR: Trends in ureteropelvic junction obstruction management among urologists in the United States. Urology 2005;65:260-264.
12.
Cella D, Yount S, Du H, Dhanda R, Gondek K, Langefeld K, George J, Bro WP, Kelly C, Bukowski R: Development and validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI). J Support Oncol 2006;4:191-199.
13.
Gratzke C, Seitz M, Bayrle F, Schlenker B, Bastian PJ, Haseke N, Bader M, Tilki D, Roosen A, Karl A, Reich O, Khoder WY, Wyler S, Stief CG, Staehler M, Bachmann A: Quality of life and perioperative outcomes after retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RN), open RN and nephron-sparing surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2009;104:470-475.
14.
Eden CG: Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction: a critical analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007;52:983-989.
15.
Davenport K, Minervin A, Timoney AG, Keeley FX Jr: Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2005;48:973-977.
16.
Imkamp F, Hermann TR, Rassweiler J, Sulser T, Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Jonas U, Burchardt M: Laparoscopy in German urology: changing acceptance among urologists. Eur Urol 2009;56:1074-1080.
17.
Shao P, Qin C, Ju X, Meng X, Li J, Lv Q, Zhang W, Xu Z, Yin C: Comparison of two different suture methods in laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. Urol Int 2011;87:304-308.
18.
Fornara P, Doehn C, Seyfarth M, Jocham D: Why is urological laparoscopy minimally invasive? Eur Urol 2000;37:241-250.
19.
Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Mall J, Böhm B, Müller JM: Prospective randomized blinded trial of pulmonary function, pain, and cosmetic results after laparoscopic vs microlaparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2000;14:345-348.
20.
Rhaghuram S, Godbole HC, Dasgupta P: Laparoscopic nephrectomy: the new gold standard? Int J Clin Pract 2005;59:128-129.
21.
Pace KT, Dyer SJ, Stewart RJ, Honey RJ, Poulin EC, Schlachta CM, Mamazza J: Health-related quality of life after laparoscopic and open nephrectomy. Surg Endosc 2003;17:143-152.
22.
Sahai A, Tang S, Challacombe B, Murphy D, Dasgupta P: Laparoscopic upper urinary tract surgery for benign and malignant conditions. Does aetiology have an effect on health-related quality of life? Int J Clin Pract 2007;61:2026-2029.
23.
Casella R, Deckart A, Bachmann A, Sulser T, Gasser TC, Lehmann K: The patient's self-evaluation better predicts the degree of erectile dysfunction than the response to intracavernous alprostadil testing. Urol Int 2004;72:216-220.
24.
Froehner M, Koch R, Leike S, Novotny V, Twelker L, Wirth MP: Urinary tract-related quality of life after radical prostatectomy: open retropubic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 2013;90:36-40.
25.
Pascoe GC: Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Eval Program Plann 1983;6:185-210.
26.
Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Thiel EC, McGreal MJ: Cancer patients' evaluations of their current health states: the influences of expectations, comparisons, actual health status, and mood. Med Decis Making 1992;12:115-122.
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.