title: Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty has been quoted to have equivalent success rates to the traditional open procedure in the treatment of pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO). The aim of this study was to report our experience with laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
  
  
  METHODS
  All patients with PUJO are entered into a database to record patient, operative and post-operative details. Over an eleven-year period, 176 procedures were performed. Eighty-three procedures were dismembered laparoscopic pyeloplasties, of which two retroperitoneal procedures were converted to open. The first 17 procedures were performed via the retroperitoneal approach and the following 66 via the transperitoneal route. Thirty-one procedures were open pyeloplasty.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The retroperitoneal group had a mean follow up of 35 (16-66) months. Five patients (33%) developed recurrent symptoms with evidence of obstruction seen on the renogram within 4 months and required further surgery. The transperitoneal group had a mean follow up of 15 (3-38) months. Five patients were classified as failures (mean time to failure 4.6 months) resulting in a success rate of 92% for the transperitoneal route. Both groups had a mean post-operative hospital stay of 3.6 days. Open pyeloplasty at our institution has a success rate of 88% at a mean follow up of 85 months (range 3-260 months) and a mean length of post-operative stay of 6 days.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Overall our success rate following laparoscopic pyeloplasty is 88%. However, our preferred approach is transperitoneal, which is associated with a success rate of 92%. This is equivalent, if not better than that seen following open pyeloplasty with the additional benefits of reduced hospital stay and time to recovery. There are many possible explanations for this difference in success rates between approaches, however equivalent results are reported in the literature and therefore the learning curve is likely to be the major factor in this series.
authors.affiliation: Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol, UK. DrKimDav@aol.com
authors.forename: Kim
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Davenport
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Minervini
authors.forename: A G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Timoney
authors.forename: F X
authors.initials: FX
authors.lastname: Keeley
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D007682:Kidney Pelvis / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery*; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010537:Peritoneum / Q000601:surgery; D011182:Postoperative Care; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology; D012008:Recurrence; D012042:Registries; D012187:Retroperitoneal Space / Q000601:surgery; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014517:Ureteral Obstruction / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000601:surgery*; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods