We believe that the dogmatic suggestion for removal of the associated enlarged pelvis during pyeloplasty just based on the microanatomy and elastin content studies is not accurate. 1 Starr N.T. Maizels M. Chou P. et al. Microanatomy and morphometry of the hydronephrotic “obstructed” renal pelvis in asymptomatic infants. J Urol. 1992; 148: 519-524 PubMed Google Scholar , 2 Kim D.S. Noh J.Y. Jeong H.J. et al. Elastin content of the renal pelvis and ureter determines post-pyeloplasty recovery. J Urol. 2005; 173: 962-966 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar Although the inefficient arrangement of muscle and collagen can make the radius and the wall of associated pelvis less elastic and can restrict the ureteral bolus, this is not applicable to a considerably dilated pelvis which can accommodate large volumes of urine. Besides, reduction of the pelvis will not enhance the urine transport capability because the contractility of remaining reduced pelvis with possible inefficient muscle arrangement will not spontaneously improve. What one should question is the potential fate of accumulated urine in the pelvis. It can be retained in the pelvis, delivered down the ureter, or escape by a pathophysiological mechanism. If the easiest access, the ureteropelvic junction, has been successfully reconstructed, reducing the pelvis will not be advantageous. Beneficial effect of reducing the pelvis is limited to the early postoperative period and not related with the drainage, which is only an accelerated improvement of ultrasound measurements. It is true in theory that removing the large pelvis can prevent kinking of the ureter; however, the potential risk of leakage and escalated fibrosis should be remembered. Editorial CommentUrologyVol. 76Issue 1PreviewThe authors present an interesting randomized study concerning the value of pelvic reduction during pyeloplasty. They found a significant decrease of the renal pelvis on ultrasound in the first and third month in patients with pelvic reduction vs patient without reduction. Six months after surgery, the difference was not significant anymore. Furthermore, the T½ time also improved in the reduction group, renal function did not demonstrate a difference. Removing a large renal pelvis during pyeloplasty is thought to reduce urinary stasis and to prevent the remaining large renal pelvis from kinking the ureter by folding over the new repair. Full-Text PDF