Prospective evaluation of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children in the first 2 years of life: Is age a risk factor for conversion?. Issue 5 (October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Badawy, H.; Saad, A.; Fahmy, A.; Dawood, W.; Aboulfotouh, A.; Kamal, A.; Refaei, K.; Zoaier, A.; Youssef, M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 13:Issue 5(2017)
• Page Start: 511.e1
• Page End: 511.e4
• Publication Date: 2017-10
• Subjects: Retroperitonoscopic pyeloplasty -- Laparoscopic pyeloplasty -- Infants and children; Pediatric urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals; Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Child; Infant; Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques; Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie; Urologie; Pediatric urology; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.926
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.03.025
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-5131

Abstract

Summary: Introduction: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children has stood the test of time. A clear advantage of laparoscopic pyeloplasty over open pyeloplasty has been proven both by retrospective and prospective trials. The aim of the current study was to address, in a prospective design, the outcomes, safety, conversion rates and risk factors for conversion in children aged <2 years who underwent retroperitonoscopic pyeloplasty by a single surgeon. Patients and methods: In the period April 2014 to May 2016, 15 children with a median age of 6 months (range 1–24) and ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) obstruction were operated by a single surgeon using retroperitonoscopic pyeloplasty with antegrade renal stenting. The position and sites of tracers are shown in the figure. Results: With a median follow-up of 6 months, there were no recurrent cases of UPJO; one child had postoperative complications and recovered conservatively; median hospital stay was 1 day (range 1–7); and conversion to open pyeloplasty was encountered in three children (20%) aged <3 months. A statistically significant difference between laparoscopic and converted cases was present concerning the age ( P = 0.048); neither gender nor side was significantly different. Discussion: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in young children has been reported in many retrospective trials. Retroperitonoscopic pyeloplasty in young children has not been reported in prospectively designed studies to address safety and outcome. The current study reported experience in young children, defining the age category <3 months as a high-risk group for conversion to open surgery, but not to higher incidence of complications. Conclusion: Retroperitonoscopic pyeloplasty in children aged <2 years is feasible, safe and successful. High conversion rates to open pyeloplasty have to be expected in children aged <3 months. Summary fig Positioning of the child and trocar sites.