Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: a multi-institutional prospective study.

INTRODUCTION:To prospectively compare the perioperative and functional outcomes of laparoscopic (LP) and open pyeloplasty (OP) in three academic institutions. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Between September 2012 and September 2016, 102 patients with primary uteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) underwent pyeloplasty (51 LP and OP for the other 51 patients). Demographic data, perioperative parameters, including operative time, estimated blood loss, complications, length of hospital stay, and functional outcome were compared, and SF-8 Health Survey scoring was recorded for each group.Patients were followed up by ultrasound (US) and /or intravenous urography (IVU) at 3, 6 and 12 months. A MAG-3 renal scan was performed at 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS:The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (153.2 ±42 min vs. 219.8 ±46 min; P <0.001). Compared to OP, the mean postoperative analgesia (Diclofenac) requirement was significantly less in the LP group (101.1 ±36 mg vs. 459.1 ±123 mg; P <0.001). The median hospital stay was significantly shorter for LP (2.7 ±1.8 days vs. 9.09 ±7.3 days; P <0.001). The median follow-up period was 19.7 months (12-28 months). The success rate was 96.1% in the OP group and 94.1% in the LP group. CONCLUSIONS:In spite of being a technically demanding procedure, LP offers faster recovery and higher patient satisfaction. In our hands, OP still has a shorter operative time and relatively lower retreatment rate.