Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Register
  • Login

Urology Journal

  • Home
  • Instant Online
    • Instant 2026
    • Instant 2023
    • Instant 2021
    • Instant 2020
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • Submissions
  • Author Guidelines
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 1 No. 3 (2004): Summer
  4. ORIGINAL PAPER (ENDOUROLOGY AND STONE DISEASE)

Vol. 1 No. 3 (2004)

June 2009

A Comparison between Laparoscopic and Open Pyeloplasty in Patients with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction

  • Nasser Simforoosh
  • Abbas Basiri
  • Ali Tabibi
  • Abdolkarim Danesh
  • Farzaneh Sharifi-Aghdas
  • Seyed Amir Mohsen Ziaee
  • Akbar Nooralizadeh
  • Seyed Mohhammad Hossein Hosseini-Moghadd

Urology Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3 (2004), 11 June 2009 , Page 165-169
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v1i3.311 Published: 2009-06-11

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Purpose: To compare clinical and radiological outcomes, complications, and hospital stay in laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty.

Materials and Methods: From February 2002 to February 2003, 69 patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) were assigned into two groups. Thirty-seven patients underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty and 32 underwent open surgical pyeloplasty. Clinical symptoms were assessed before and after surgery, subjectively. Radiological assessment was also done three months postoperatively.

Results: Mean operative time was 3.2 hours and 2.2 hours in laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty groups, respectively. Intraoperative bleeding was trivial in both groups and no complication or conversion to open surgery occurred. Postoperative complication rates were 24% and 6% in laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty groups, respectively. Mean hospital stay was similar (6.2 days) in the two groups. Mean follow-up was 16.5 months versus 11.4 months. Clinical and radiological success rates were 89% and 83.8% for laparoscopy group versus 96.5% and 87% for open pyeloplasty group. Due to recurrence of stricture, repeated surgery was performed in 4 patients of laparoscopy and 1 of open pyeloplasty groups.

Conclusion: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty is a less invasive method with less pain, cosmetic advantages, no long incision, and outcome comparable with open surgery. Hospital stay is also not longer than that in open surgeries. Hence, laparoscopic pyeloplasty can be a substitute for skilled surgeons.
  • PDF

How to Cite

Simforoosh, N., Basiri, A., Tabibi, A., Danesh, A., Sharifi-Aghdas, F., Ziaee, S. A. M., … Hosseini-Moghadd, S. M. H. (2009). A Comparison between Laparoscopic and Open Pyeloplasty in Patients with Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction. Urology Journal, 1(3), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v1i3.311
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX
  • Abstract Viewed: 319 times
  • PDF Downloaded: 277 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors

Developed By

Open Journal Systems
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact
Powered by OJSPlus