Comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty for pelviureteric junction obstruction in adult patients

  • Shahnawaz Rasool
  • Mahendra SinghEmail author
  • Saurabh Jain
  • Sudhir Chaddha
  • Vipin Tyagi
  • Mrinal Pahwa
  • Himanshu Pandey
Original Article


Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is a frequently found congenital abnormality of the upper urinary tract treated with pyeloplasty. We hereby report a study to compare open pyeloplasty (OP), laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) and robotic assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) for UPJO in terms of functional and perioperative outcomes. 102 patients who underwent Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty for UPJO were divided into three groups based on type of surgical techniques utilized as follows: OP (Group A; n = 34), LP (Group B; n = 34), and RAP (Group C; n = 34). Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative data were recorded. The mean operative time was significantly more in the Group B (187.76 min) than the Group A (132.06 ± 30.1 min) and Group C (136.76 ± 25.1 min) (p < .001). Mean blood loss was more in OP group 86.47 ± 29. 35 ml versus 42.94 ± 20. 77 ml in RAP and 45.59 ± 20. 3 ml in the LP group (p < .001). The LP was found to be much tiring. Mean surgeon fatigue index (SFI) calculated was 7 ± 1.1 in the LP group compared to 4.12 ± 1.1 in RAP group and the difference was statistically significant (p< .001). Average VAS score in the first 2 days postoperatively was 6.66±1.58 in the OP group compared to 4.29 ± 1.16 in RAP group and 4.29 ± 1.31 in the LP group (p < 0.001). Pyeloplasty has a similar success rate and efficacy irrespective of the technique utilized. RAP improves the surgeons QOL (quality of life) and the fatigue scores, which is useful for surgeon longevity. RAP has become widely favorite and can be considered the approach of choice in the management of UPJO wherever infrastructure and finances allow.


Ureteropelvic junction Pyeloplasty Robotic 




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Shahnawaz Rasool, Mahendra Singh, Saurabh Jain, Sudhir Chaddha, Vipin Tyagi, Mrinal Pahwa and Himnshu Pandey declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Gosling JA, Dixon JS (1978) Functional obstruction of the ureter and renal pelvis. A histological and electron microscopic study. Br J Urol 50(3):145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kausik S, Segura JW (2003) Surgical management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. Int Braz J Urol 29(1):3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Tabibi A, Danesh AK, Sharifi-Aghdas F, Ziaee SAM et al (2004) A comparison between laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urol J 1(3):165–169Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calvert RC, Morsy MM, Zelhof B, Rhodes M, Burgess NA (2008) Comparison of laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in 100 patients with pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction. Surg Endosc 22(2):411–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gupta NP, Nayyar R, Hemal AK, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Dogra PN (2010) Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJU Int 105(7):980–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gettman MT, Neururer R, Bartsch G, Peschel R (2002) Anderson-Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty performed using the da Vinci robotic system. Urology 60(3):509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braga LHP, Pace K, DeMaria J, Lorenzo AJ (2009) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Eur Urol 56(5):848–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Başataç C, Boylu U, Önol FF, Gümüş E (2014) Comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Turk J Urol 40(1):24–30Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boylu U, Oommen M, Lee BR, Thomas R (2009) Ureteropelvic junction obstruction secondary to crossing vessels—To transpose or not? The robotic experience. J Urol. 181(4):1751–1755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mufarrij PW, Shah OD, Berger AD, Stifelman MD (2007) Robotic reconstruction of the upper urinary tract. J Urol 178(5):2002–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar R, Nayak B (2013) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a single surgeon concurrent cohort review. Indian J Urol 29(1):19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Memon MA, Biyabani SR, Ghirano R, Aziz W, Siddiqui KM (2016) Is laparoscopic pyeloplasty a comparable option to treat Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO)? A comparative study. JPMA J Pak Med Assoc 66(3):324–327Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, Narayan S, Das RK, Bera M et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: comparison of two surgical approaches- a single centre experience of three years. Indian J Surg 73(4):264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyGovt. HospitalSrinagarIndia
  2. 2.Department of UrologyAIIMSJodhpurIndia
  3. 3.Department of UrologyIndus HospitalJaipurIndia
  4. 4.Department of UrologySir Ganga Ram HospitalDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations