Display Settings:


Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Urology. 2001 Mar;57(3):443-7.

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: comparison of two surgical approaches.

Author information

  • 1Department of Urologic Surgery and Andrology, University Hospital of Rangueil, Toulouse, France



To compare the complications, hospital stay, and functional results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic (RL) pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty (OP) with a minimal subcostal incision.


From October 1997 to January 2000, 53 consecutive nonrandomized patients underwent 26 RL pyeloplasties, of which 1 was bilateral (group 1), and 28 OP (group 2). The decision between the two techniques depended on the patient's anesthetic ability to tolerate RL, previous ureteropelvic junction surgery, associated renal pathologic findings, and the surgeon's laparoscopic experience. Subjective outcomes as to postoperative pain and convalescence and objective findings on intravenous urography were assessed at 3 months postoperatively in both groups.


The mean operating time (165 versus 145 minutes) and mean blood loss (92 versus 84 mL) were similar in both groups. No intraoperative complications occurred in either group; in group 1, 1 patient required open conversion. Postoperative complications occurred in 11.5% of group 1 and 14.3% of group 2. The mean hospital stay was 4.5 days for group 1 and 5.5 days for group 2. At 3 months, 23 patients (92%) in group 1 and 25 (89.2%) in group 2 were pain-free or improved. Intravenous urography showed a patent ureteropelvic junction in all cases and improvement of hydronephrosis in 88.5% of group 1 and 89.3% of group 2.


The incidence of complications, hospital stay, and functional results were equivalent for RL pyeloplasty and OP with a minimal incision, but the return to painless activity was more rapid with laparoscopy in younger patients.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk