Laparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty for Pelvicoureteric Junction Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Objectives To compare outcomes of laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty for the management of pelvicoureteric
junction obstruction (PUJO) using a systematic review and meta-analysis.
In September 2022, electronic database searches were conducted using the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central
Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, clinical trial registries, and relevant conferences to identify
relevant abstracts and presentations.
Methods Prospective randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic to open pyeloplasty for PUJO were
included in the review. There were no restrictions on date or language. All populations were included. The authors
performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using
RevMan software.
Results Six prospective randomized controlled trials involving 335 participants were included in the analysis.
Six studies included data on the failure rate, with a slight favouring of open pyeloplasty compared to laparoscopic
pyeloplasty, although this was not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval
[CI] 0.50 to 3.83).
Five studies compared operative time, with open pyeloplasty found to have shorter times across all studies (mean
difference [MD], 54.97 minutes; 95% CI 47.08 to 62.85).
Based on 5 studies, laparoscopic pyeloplasty has a shorter hospital stay (MD, 4.12 days; 95% CI 3.64 to 4.59).
Two studies compared postoperative analgesia requirements, showing a lower diclofenac requirement in the
laparoscopic group (MD, 330.08 mg; 95% CI 298.05 to 362.11 mg).
One study compared blood loss intraoperatively and found no significant difference between the groups (MD,
8.52 mL; 95% CI -2.49 to 19.53).
Based on 4 studies, laparoscopic pyeloplasty may result in slightly higher complication rates postoperatively (OR, 1.49;
95% CI 0.53 to 4.18); however, there was no statistically significant difference.
No subgroup analyses were conducted.
Conclusions Limited, low-quality evidence from small-scale trials suggests that laparoscopic pyeloplasty has
improved outcomes in terms of shorter hospital stays and reduced postoperative pain compared to open pyeloplasty.
Open pyeloplasty, on the other hand, had a shorter operative time. Failure rate, complication rate, and blood loss were
comparable between the 2 approaches.
The Société International d'Urologie (SIU), which owns and publishes the Société International d'Urologie Journal (SIUJ), does not require authors of papers published in the journal to transfer copyright. Instead, we ask authors to grant an exclusive licence that allows us to publish the article in SIUJ (and any derivative or related products or publications) and that allows us to sub-license such rights and exploit all subsidiary rights.
Authors retain the right to use their own articles for their own non-commercial purposes without seeking explicit permission from SIU.
The SIUJ publication licence expressly defines “non-commercial” as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” Although no activity is completely disconnected from commercial activity, the following are generally considered to be non-commercial uses:
- Reproduction of a reasonable number (no more than 100) of print copies of the published paper for personal use (e.g., sharing with colleagues, including in grant applications).
- Posting a copy of the published version of the paper on the author’s own or their institution’s website. The article must be accompanied by this statement: ‘This article has been published in the SIUJ: [full citation; link]’.
- Inclusion of the paper in a course pack, with a maximum of 100 copies to be used in the author’s institution. The copies must include the following acknowledgement: ‘This article has been published in the SIUJ: [full citation; link].’
As the distinction between commercial and non-commercial is not always clear, authors are strongly advised to seek permission from SIU for any use that may be considered to have a commercial aspect.
We ask the corresponding author to read the terms of the licence and then to grant this exclusive licence on behalf of all authors by indicating agreement to the following statement:
The corresponding author has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, an exclusive licence on a worldwide basis to the SIU and its licensees to permit this article (if accepted) to be published in the SIUJ and any other SIU products and publications and to exploit all subsidiary rights, as set out in our licence agreement.
Review and Decision
Most submissions will be reviewed by a senior editor within 2 weeks. Many manuscripts will be rejected at this point for a variety of reasons, including subject matter outside the scope of the SIUJ, flawed design, discredited or outdated methodology, poor organization or presentation, failure to conform to ethical requirements, and apparent plagiarism.The remaining manuscripts will be sent for peer review. The SIUJ uses a single-blind process: reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the authors are not told who has reviewed their manuscript, and SIUJ ensures that potentially identifying information is removed from comments sent to them. Reviewers are asked to make their recommendations within 10 days, after which a senior/specialist editor will consider their comments and recommend provisional acceptance dependent on satisfactory revision, acceptance without revision, or rejection. Authors should receive a final decision within 4 to 6 weeks of submission.
