Defining the Pros and Cons of Open, Conventional Laparoscopy, and Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in a Developing Nation

Abstract EN

Introduction.

Congenital pelviureteric junction obstruction (PUJO) is one of the most common causes of hydronephrosis.

Historically, open dismembered pyeloplasty has been considered the gold standard intervention for correcting PUJO.

The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and functional outcomes of three different approaches, namely, open, conventional laparoscopy, and robotic pyeloplasty.

Material and Methods.

60 patients underwent minimally invasive pyeloplasty (30 conventional laparoscopies and 30 robotics) for congenital PUJO at a tertiary health center in India.

Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data were prospectively collected and analyzed.

The data of these patients were retrospectively compared with another cohort of 30 patients who had undergone open pyeloplasty.

Results.

There was significant difference in operative time, time to drain removal, hospital stay, pain score, and complications rate between open and minimally invasive pyeloplasty (P<0.05).

SFI was considerably lesser in robotic as compared to conventional laparoscopy.

The success rate in OP, CLP, and RP was 93.33, 96.67, and 96.67%.

Conclusion.

Robotic pyeloplasty is safe, effective, and feasible.

It is associated with significantly lesser operative time, lesser blood loss, less pain, shorter hospital stay, and fewer complications.

It is also associated with considerably lesser surgeon fatigue as compared to conventional laparoscopy pyeloplasty.