Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: an experience at a tertiary care centre


  • Sunil Krishna M. Department of Surgery, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India
  • Moideen Nafseer T. A. Department of Surgery, Mangala Hospital and Mangala Kidney Foundation, Kadri, Mangalore, Karnataka, India
  • Benakatti Rajendra Department of Surgery, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India



Laparoscopy, Open surgery, Pyeloplasty, Ureteropelvic junction obstruction


Background: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction can lead to symptoms such as hydronephrosis and progressive renal damage. Authors explain present primary experiences about laparoscopic pyeloplasty and open pyeloplasty in the treatment of UPJO.

Methods: A bidirectional non-randomized study from March 2012 to April 2015 was conducted at a tertiary care centre in southern India. A Total 37 cases, 18 patients in laparoscopic pyeloplasty group and 19 patients in open pyeloplasty group were included.

Results: A total of 37 patients were included in the study. 18 patients underwent laparoscopic Anderson-Hyne's pyeloplasty, 19 patients underwent open Anderson-Hyne's pyeloplasty patients. Outcomes were measured in terms of pain, surgery duration, postoperative pain, complications which were significant.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic pyeloplasty was found to be better in terms of postoperative pain, hospital stay and complications.


Hsu TH, Streem SB, Nakada SY. Management of upper urinary tract obstruction. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 9th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders Elsevier; 2007:1125-1150.

Notley RG, Beaugie JM. The long-term follow-up of Anderson hynes pyeloplasty for hydronephrosis. Br J Urol. 1973;45:464-6.

Hartley G, Cileton JR, George W Kalpan. Ureteropelvic-junction obstruction. King’s Infant Children Urology. 3rd edition. CRC Press. 19-29.

Srinivas KK, Uppin IV, Nerle RB. A Prospective randomized controlled trial complains open pyeloplasty and laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): subjective outcome. J Clinical Diagnost Res. 2011 December;5(8):1601-5.

Steven B Streem, Jenny J Franke, Joseph A, Smith JR. Campbell’s Urology. 2nd edition. 2015;1:38-40.

Bansal P, Gupta A, Mongha R, Narayan S, Kundu AK, Chakraborty SC, et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: comparison of two surgical approaches-a single centre experience of three years. J Minimal Access Surg. 2008 Jul;4(3):76-9.

Singhania P, Andankar MG, Pathak HR. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: Our experience in 15 cases. World. 2009 May;2(2):6-11.

Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol. 2003 Apr 1;17(3):155-60.

Brooks, James D. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urol. 1995;46(6):791-5.

Zhang X, Li HZ, Ma X, Zheng T, Lang B, Zhang J, et al. Retrospective comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J urol. 2006;176(3):1077-80.






Original Research Articles