CLINICAL TRIAL
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome.

Journal of Urology 1999 September
PURPOSE: We determine the subjective and objective durability of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: From August 1993 to April 1997, 42 patients underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty (laparoscopy group) with a minimum clinical followup of 12 months (mean 22). Subjective outcomes and objective findings were compared to those of 35 patients who underwent open pyeloplasty (open surgery group) from August 1986 to April 1997 with a minimum clinical followup of 12 months (mean 58). We assessed clinical outcome based on responses to a subjective analog pain and activity scale. In addition, radiographic outcome was assessed based on the results of the most recent radiographic study.

RESULTS: Of the 42 laparoscopy group patients 90% (38) were pain-free (26, 62%) or had significant improvement in flank pain (12, 29%) after surgery. Two patients had only minor improvement and 2 had no improvement in pain. Surgery failed in only 1 patient with complete obstruction. A patent ureteropelvic junction was demonstrated in 98% (41 of 42 patients) of the laparoscopy group on the most recent radiographic study (mean radiographic followup 15 months). Of the 35 open surgery group patients 91% were pain-free (21, 60%) or significantly improved (11, 31%) after surgery. One patient had only minor improvement and 2 were worse.

CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief, improved activity level and relief of obstruction outcomes are equivalent for laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app