Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 1):692-5.

Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome.

Author information

1
Department of Surgery, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

We determine the subjective and objective durability of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

From August 1993 to April 1997, 42 patients underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty (laparoscopy group) with a minimum clinical followup of 12 months (mean 22). Subjective outcomes and objective findings were compared to those of 35 patients who underwent open pyeloplasty (open surgery group) from August 1986 to April 1997 with a minimum clinical followup of 12 months (mean 58). We assessed clinical outcome based on responses to a subjective analog pain and activity scale. In addition, radiographic outcome was assessed based on the results of the most recent radiographic study.

RESULTS:

Of the 42 laparoscopy group patients 90% (38) were pain-free (26, 62%) or had significant improvement in flank pain (12, 29%) after surgery. Two patients had only minor improvement and 2 had no improvement in pain. Surgery failed in only 1 patient with complete obstruction. A patent ureteropelvic junction was demonstrated in 98% (41 of 42 patients) of the laparoscopy group on the most recent radiographic study (mean radiographic followup 15 months). Of the 35 open surgery group patients 91% were pain-free (21, 60%) or significantly improved (11, 31%) after surgery. One patient had only minor improvement and 2 were worse.

CONCLUSIONS:

Pain relief, improved activity level and relief of obstruction outcomes are equivalent for laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty.

PMID:
10458344
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center