Objective: To compare the outcomes of modified laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) and robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RLP) for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) in China patients. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent modified LP and RLP using a transperitoneal laparoscopic approach at 2 different medical institutions between October 2009 and November 2017. Results: Seventy-six patients underwent modified LP and 140 patients underwent RLP. No open conversion occurred. The mean operative time of RLP was shorter than that of modified LP (p = 0.042). For UPJO concomitant with renal calculi, there was no difference in operative time between 2 groups (p = 0.656). With RLP, the operative time for UPJO concomitant with horseshoe was shorter (p = 0.011). In terms of complication rate, there was no significant difference between 2 groups (p = 0.596). The postoperative hospital stay for modified LP was shorter than that for RLP (p < 0.05). The mean follow-up time for modified LP and RLP was 31.79 months and 10.85 months respectively (p < 0.05). The success rate was 96.05 and 97.86% for modified LP and RLP, respectively (p = 0.736). Conclusions: Modified LP and RLP are safe and efficient treatment for UPJO with similar success rates.

Keywords:
Robotic surgery, Laparoscopy, Pyeloplasty, Ureteropelvic junction obstruction
1.
Anderson JC, Hynes W: Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed preoperatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949; 21: 209–214.
2.
Sutherland DE, Jarrett TW: Surgical options in the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Curr Urol Rep 2009; 10: 23–28.
3.
Yanke BV, Lallas CD, Pagnani C, McGinnis DE, Bagley DH: The minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a review of our experience during the last decade. J Urol 2008; 80: 1397–1402.
4.
Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ: Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur Urol 2003; 44: 340–345.
5.
Mufarrij PW, Woods M, Shah OD, Palese MA, Berger AD, Thomas R, Stifelman MD: Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty: a 6-year, multi-institutional experience. J Urol 2008; 180: 1391–1396.
6.
Yang K, Yao L, Li X, Zhang C, Wang T, Zhang L, Fang D, He Z, Zhou L: A modified suture technique for transperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty of pelviureteric junction obstruction. Urology 2015; 85: 263–267.
7.
Zheng J, Yan J, Zhou Z, Chen Z, Li X, Pan J, Li W: Concomitant treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and renal calculi with robotic laparoscopic surgery and rigid nephroscopy. Urology 2014; 83: 237–242.
8.
Uberoi J, Disick GI, Munver R: Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty. BJU Int 2009; 104: 1722–1729.
9.
Penn HA, Gatti JM, Hoestje SM, DeMarco RT, Snyder CL, Murphy JP: Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children: preliminary report of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2010; 184: 690–695.
10.
Van Cangh PJ, Nesa S, Galeon M, Tombal B, Wese FX, Dardenne AN, Opsomer R, Lorge F: Vessels around the ureteropelvic junction: significance and imaging by conventional radiology. J Endourol 1996; 10: 111–119.
11.
Patel V: Robotic dismembered pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Indian J Urol 2005; 21: 97–101.
12.
Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR: Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 1999; 162: 692–695.
13.
Hemal AK, Mishra S, Mukharjee S, Suryavanshi M: Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair. Int J Urol 2008; 15: 744–746.
14.
Yohannes P, Burjonrappa SC: Rapid communication: laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty using the da Vinci robot: technical considerations. J Endourol 2003; 17: 79–83.
15.
Sung GT, Gill IS: Robotic laparoscopic surgery: a comparison of the da Vinci and Zeus systems. Urology 2001; 58: 893–898.
16.
Bhayani SB, Link RE, Varkarakis JM, Kavoussi LR: Complete daVinci versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty: cost analysis. J Endourol 2005; 19: 327–332.
17.
Lee RS, Retik AB, Borer JG, Peters CA: Pediatric robot assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: comparison with a cohort of open surgery. J Urol 2006; 175: 683–687.
18.
Yee DS, Shanberg AM, Duel BP, Rodriguez E, Eichel L, Rajpoot D: Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. Urology 2006; 67: 599–602.
19.
Clements T, Raman JD: Laparoendoscopic single-site pyeloplasty. Ther Adv Urol 2011; 3: 141–149.
20.
Pini G, Goezen AS, Schulze M, Hruza M, Klein J, Rassweiler JJ: Small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) pyeloplasty in adult patients: comparison of cosmetic and post-operative pain outcomes in a matched-pair analysis with standard retroperitoneoscopy: preliminary report. World J Urol 2012; 30: 605–611.
21.
Novitsky YW, Kercher KW, Czerniach D R, Kaban GK, Khera S, Gallagher-Dorval KA, Callery MP, Litwin DE, Kelly JJ: Advantages of mini-laparoscopic vs conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: results of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Surg 2005; 140: 1178–1183.
22.
Rassweiler JJ, Teber D, Frede T: Complications of laparoscopic pyeloplasty. World J Urol 2008; 26: 539–547.
23.
Qadri SJ, Khan M: Retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty: our experience. Urol Int 2010; 85: 309–313.
24.
Zhu H, Shen C, Li X, Xiao X, Chen X, Zhang Q, Wang H, He Z, Zhou L: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparison between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach during the learning curve. Urol Int 2013; 90: 130–135.
25.
Janetschek G, Peschel R, Bartsch G: Laparoscopic Fenger plasty. J Endourol 2000; 14: 889–893.
26.
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.
27.
Szydelko T, Kasprzak J, Lewandowski J, Apoznanski W, Dembowski J: Dismembered laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty versus nondismembered laparoscopic Y-V pyeloplasty in the treatment of patients with primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a prospective study. J Endourol 2012; 26: 1165–1170.
28.
Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR: A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Ann Surg 2006; 243: 486–491.
29.
Bernie JE, Venkatesh R, Brown J, Gardner TA, Sundaram CP: Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty with and without robotic assistance. JSLS 2005; 9: 258–261.
30.
Franco I, Dyer LL, Zelkovic P: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis- is there a difference? J Urol 2007; 178: 1483–1486.
31.
Braga LH, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ: Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol 2009; 56: 848–857.
32.
Bird VG, Leveillee RJ, Eldefrawy A, Bracho J, Aziz MS: Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study. Urology 2011; 77: 730–734.
33.
Inagaki T, Rha KH, Ong AM, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty: current status. BJU Int 2005; 95: 102–105.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
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.