Response to “Outcomes of infants undergoing laparoscopic pyeloplasty: A single-center experience”

Abstract

Although studies such as that of Erol et al. can raise doubts to a pediatric urologist about whether or not to carry out a laparoscopic approach in a pyeloplasty in infants, especially due to the percentage of complications, meta-analyses such as the one mentioned reinforce the safety and good results of the laparoscopic approach in these patients. The laparoscopic approach provides potential benefits over open surgery, such as better visualization of polar vessels, less aggressive dissection of periureteral tissues, or smaller scars. Although many open pyeloplasty incisions can be made small, they will never be smaller than those with 3 or 5 mm ports. Thus, any urologist or pediatric surgeon with experience in laparoscopic surgery has sufficient data at their disposal to be confident in the reproducibility and safety of laparoscopic surgery for pyeloplasties in infants. It is appreciated that works such as that of Erol et al. help minimally invasive techniques expand within pediatric urology.