Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approaches of pyeloplasty in management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A meta-analysis.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits and safety of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction by a meta-analysis. We searched the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase database from their inception to December 1st, 2020. Relevant literatures comparing retroperitoneal pyeloplasty with transperitoneal pyeloplasty were identified. A meta-analysis was conducted with Revman 5.3. The main outcomes included success rate, operative time, hospital stay, conversion rate of open surgery, overall complications, and detailed postoperative complications/indicators. 15 studies with 1881 patients were included. The results revealed that there were no significant differences between two approaches in success rate [OR = 1.51, 95%CI (0.94, 2.41), p = 0.09], hospital stay [MD = 0.21, 95%CI (-0.12, 0.54), p = 0.21] and overall complications [OR = 1.07, 95%CI (0.76, 1.50), p = 0.69]. The retroperitoneal approach was associated with longer operative time [MD = -26.91, 95%CI (-40.97, -12.84), p < 0.001], higher conversion rate [OR = 0.23, 95%CI (0.11, 0.47), p < 0.001] than the transperitoneal approach. As for the detailed postoperative complications/indicators, there were no significant differences between two approaches in the urinary leak, mild hematuria, fever, UPJO recurrence, infection and subcutaneous emphysema, as well as split renal function, renal pelvis anteroposterior diameter. The funnel plots showed that there were no obvious publication biases in our analysis. Therefore, we concluded that transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches had similar benefits and safety in success rate, hospital stay, overall complications and detailed postoperative complications/indicators. However, retroperitoneal was associated with longer operative time and higher conversion rate than transperitoneal approach. With the limitations of our study, additional high-quality studies are still essential for further evaluation.