Minimally invasive pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

To compare the perioperative outcomes and success rates of minimally invasive pyeloplasty (MIP), including laparoscopic and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty, with open pyeloplasty (OP) in infants. In September 2022, a systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases was undertaken. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with the study registered prospectively in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022359475). Eleven studies were included. Dichotomous and continuous variables were presented as odds ratios (OR) and standard mean differences (SMD), respectively, with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Compared to OP, a longer operation time and shorter length of stay were associated with MIP (SMD: 0.96,95% CI: 0.30 to 1.62, p=0.004, and SMD: -1.12, 95% CI: -1.82 to -0.43, p=0.002, respectively). No significant differences were found between the MIP and OP in terms of overall postoperative complications (OR:0.84, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.35, p=0.47), minor complications (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.42, p=0.39), or major complications (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.49 to 2.50, p=0.81). In addition, a lower stent placement rate was related to MIP (OR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.47, p=0.004). There was no statistical difference for success rate between the MIP and OP (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.59 to 3.07, p=0.47). Finally, the results of subgroup analysis were consistent with the above. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that MIP is a feasible and safe alternative to OP for infants, presenting comparable perioperative outcomes and similar success rates, albeit requiring longer operation times. However, it is essential to consider the limitations of our study, including the inclusion of studies with small sample sizes and the combination of both prospective and retrospective research designs.