Objective: To describe and analyze our experience with secondary robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in treating recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) after primary pyeloplasty.
Methods: Patients who underwent secondary RALP or LP for recurrent UPJO were retrospectively analyzed. Baseline characteristics, detailed history of previous pyeloplasty, operative profile and follow-up data were collected and analyzed.
Results: Among 29 patients presented with recurrent UPJO, 15 patients underwent secondary RALP. Both groups (RALP or LP) were comparable in baseline characteristics and detailed history of previous pyeloplasty. The mean operative time, suturing time, and hospitalization time of patients in RALP group were significantly less than those in LP group. The mean operative time of RALP group was 2.1 h, while the mean operative time of LP group was 3.23 h. The average suturing time of LP (62.43 min) is about 3 times that of RALP (21.47 min). The overall mean follow-up data was 23 months. The success rate of the RALP group and LP group was 87.7 and 85.7% respectively.
Conclusion: Compared to LP, RALP may be a better choice for the treatment of recurrent UPJO. Further high-quality clinical studies are needed to confirm the superior nature of RALP.
Keywords: Conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty; Recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction; Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty; Secondary pyeloplasty.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel.