A systematic review and metaanalysis of open, conventional laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques for re-do pyeloplasty for recurrent uretero pelvic junction obstruction in children

Published:September 02, 2022DOI:



      About 3% of primary pyeloplasties may require a re-do pyeloplasty for recurrent uretero pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) making it an uncommon operation even in large volume centers. In this MA we have compared the outcomes of open (OP), laparoscopic (LP) and robot assisted LP (RALP) approaches in managing recurrent UPJO.


      Pubmed/Index medicus etc. were searched for re-do pyeloplasty (Open OR Laparoscopic OR Robot-assisted) AND (Redo OR Reoperative OR failed) AND (child OR pediatric OR paediatric), for articles published between 2001 and 2021. Duplicate publications were identified and removed. Articles with grossly incomplete data and errors in reporting were excluded, as were articles reporting <5 cases. The systematic review was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines and meta-analysis of proportions was carried out using MetaXL 5.3.


      A total of 18 articles on re-do pyeloplasty were included in the analysis. In total, there were 87, 77 and 123 redo pyeloplasties in OP, LP and RALP groups respectively. The I2 statistics for OP, LP and RALP showed low heterogeneity with I2 of 24%, 0% and 20% respectively. LFK index was 0.88, 0.30 and 1.62 for OP, LP and RALP respectively, suggesting no or minor publication bias. The overall success rates of OP, LP and RALP re-do pyeloplasty were 93.1% (95% CI 86–98), 92.1% (95% CI 83–96) and 89.4% (95% CI 83–96) respectively (summary table). The success rate between the techniques was not significantly different, with p values (x2) of 1 (OP vs LP), 0.5 (OP vs RALP) and 0.6 (LP vs RALP). Overall, redo RALP took significantly longer time than redo LP (p < 0.001, Fisher's). Overall, RALP had significantly shorter hospital stay than LP (p < 0.001) and LP had significantly shorter hospital stay than OP (p < 0.001). The complication rate was 9% in OP and LP and 16% in RALP, the difference being not statistically significant (p value 1, 0.26 and 0.27 for OP vs LP, OP vs RALP and LP vs RALP respectively, x2).


      In conclusion MIS techniques (LP and RALP) seem to be good alternatives to OP for redo pyeloplasty in children, with comparable success and complications. Redo RALP had longer duration of surgery but shorter hospital stay than redo LP. With comparable success & complication rate between RALP and LP, this MA could not favor one over the other for redo pyeloplasty.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Cundy T.P.
        • Harling L.
        • Hallet A.H.
        • Mayer E.K.
        • Najmaldin A.S.
        • Athanasiou T.
        • et al.
        Meta-analysis of robot-assisted vs conventional laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children.
        BJU Int. 2014; 114: 582-594
        • Dy G.W.
        • His R.S.
        • Holt S.K.
        • et al.
        National trends in secondary procedures following pediatric pyeloplasty.
        J Urol. 2016; 195: 1209-1214
        • Romao R.L.
        • Koyle M.A.
        • Salle J.L.P.
        • Alotay A.
        • Figueroa V.H.
        • Lorenzo A.J.
        • et al.
        Failed pyeloplasty in children: revisiting the unknown.
        Urology. 2013; 82: 1145-1149
        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Mulrow C.
        • Gotzsche P.C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        BMJ. 2009 Dec 4; 339: b2700
        • Kanamori L.F.
        • Barendregt J.
        • Doi S.A.R.
        A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in metaanalysis.
        Int J Evid Base Healthc. 2018; 16: 195-203
        • Thomas J.
        • DeMarco R.
        • Donohoe J.
        • Adams M.
        • Pope J.
        • Brock J.
        Management of the failed pyeloplasty: a contemporary review.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 2363-2366
        • Helmy T.E.
        • Sarhan O.M.
        • Hafez A.T.
        • Elsherbiny M.T.
        • Dawaba M.E.
        • Ghali A.M.
        Surgical management of failed pyeloplasty in children: single-center experience.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2009; 5: 87-89
        • Abdrabuh A.M.
        • Salih E.M.
        • Abolnasr M.
        • et al.
        Endopyelotomy versus redo pyeloplasty for management of failed pyeloplasty in children: a single-center experience.
        J Pediatr Surg. 2018; 53: 2250-2255
        • Ceyhan E.
        • Dogan H.S.
        • Tekgul S.
        Our experience on management of failed pediatric pyeloplasty.
        Pediatr Surg Int. 2020; 36: 971-976
        • Abdel-karim A.M.
        • Fahmy A.
        • Moussa A.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic obstruction in children.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2016; 12: 401.e1-401.e6
        • Piaggio L.A.
        • Noh P.A.
        • Gonzalez R.
        Reoperative laparoscopic pyeloplasy in children: comparison with open surgery.
        J Urol. 2007; 177: 1878-1882
        • Powell C.
        • Gatti J.M.
        • Juang D.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction following open pyeloplasty in children.
        J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Technol. 2015; 25: 858-863
        • Moscardi P.R.M.
        • Barbosa J.A.B.A.
        • Andrade H.S.
        • et al.
        Reoperative laparoscopic ureteropelvic junction repair in children: safety and efficacy of the technique.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 798-804
        • Al-Hazmi H.
        • Peycelon M.
        • Carricaburu E.
        • et al.
        Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants and chilsden: feasible and effective.
        Front Pediatr. 2020; 8546741
        • Chandrasekharam V.V.S.
        Laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty in children: comparison with laparoscopic primary pyeloplasty.
        J Pediatr Endosc Surg. 2020; 2: 69-73
        • Hemal A.K.
        • Mishra S.
        • Mukharjee S.
        • et al.
        Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair.
        Int J Urol. 2008; 16: 744-746
        • Asensio M.
        • Gander R.
        • Royo G.F.
        • et al.
        Failed pyeloplasty in children: is robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair feasible?.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2015; 11: 69.e1-69.e6
        • Davis T.D.
        • Burns A.S.
        • Corbett S.T.
        • et al.
        Reoperative robotic pyeloplasty in children.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2016; 12: 394.e1-394.e7
        • Baek M.
        • Silay M.S.
        • Au J.K.
        • et al.
        Quantifying the additional difficulty of pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic redo pyeloplasty: a comparison of primary and redo procedures.
        J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Technol. 2018; 28: 610-616
        • Jacobson D.L.
        • Shannon R.
        • Johnson E.K.
        • Gong E.M.
        • Liu D.B.
        • Flink C.C.
        • et al.
        Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: an updated series.
        J Urol. 2019; 201: 1005-1011
        • Esposito C.
        • Maseiri L.
        • Blanc T.
        • et al.
        Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) in children with complex pelviureteric junction obstruction (PUJO): results of a multicenter European report.
        World J Urol. 2021; 39: 1641-1647
        • Mittal S.
        • Aghababian A.
        • Eftekhazedeh S.
        • et al.
        Primary versus redo robotic pyeloplasty: a comparison of outcomes.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2021; 17: 528.e1-528.e7
        • Clavien P.A.
        • Barkun J.
        • de Oliveira M.L.
        • et al.
        The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.
        Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 187
        • Neheman A.
        • Kord E.
        • Zisman A.
        • Darawsha A.E.
        • Noh P.H.
        Comparison of robotic pyeloplasty and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: a bi-institutional study.
        J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Technol. 2018; 28: 467-470