Retroperitoneal Laparoendoscopic Single-site Ureterolithotomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy - 25/02/13
, Abdulmuttalip Simsek, Taner Kargi, Hakan Polat, Bekir Aras, Ali Ihsan Tasci
Reprint requests: Volkan Tugcu, M.D., Department of Urology, Bakırkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Tevfik Saglam Cad. No: 11, 34000, Zuhuratbaba, Istanbul, Turkey.Abstract |
Objective |
To evaluate the outcomes of conventional laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (CL-RU) and retroperitoneal laparoendoscopic single site retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LESS-RU) for large, impacted upper ureteral stones.
Patients and Methods |
Between January 2008 and December 2010, 65 patients underwent conventional or LESS ureterolithotomy. CL-RU was performed in 42 patients. These patients were compared with the remaining 23 patients who underwent LESS-RU. Indications for the operations were obstructive or impacted ureteral stones larger than 15 mm in the middle or upper part of the ureter. The following parameters of CL-RU were compared with the LESS-RU: operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of analgesia, postoperative pain, hospitalization time, and time to return to normal activities.
Results |
No difference was observed between the below-mentioned, respective parameters of CL-RU and LESS-RU groups: mean operative time (74.1 vs 69.9 min, P = .54), blood loss (54.9 vs 56.1 mL, P = .49), transfusion rates (0% for both), and hospitalization time (3.1 vs 2.9 days, P = .61). Duration of analgesia in patients who underwent CL-RU was longer than those who underwent LESS-RU (5.2 vs 2.4 days, P = .001). Time to return to normal activities in CL-RU patients was also longer than LESS-RU patients (9.7 vs 6.4 days, P = .001). Compared to CL-RU, mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were lower during postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 in LESS-RU patients. Urine leakage was observed in 2 cases in each group.
Conclusion |
LESS ureterolithotomy performed by adopting the retroperitoneal approach seems to be a safe, reliable, and minimally invasive procedure after failed shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy (URS). Naturally, further prospective, randomized, and controlled studies on large samples are needed to test the effectiveness of this approach.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
| Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests. |
Vol 81 - N° 3
P. 567-572 - mars 2013 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- da Vinci Skills Simulator for Assessing Learning Curve and Criterion-based Training of Robotic Basic Skills
- Willem M. Brinkman, Jan-Maarten Luursema, Bas Kengen, Barbara M.A. Schout, J. Alfred Witjes, Ruud L. Bekkers
- Perioperative Complications of Robot-assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Analysis of 886 Patients at 5 United States Centers
- Youssef S. Tanagho, Jihad H. Kaouk, Mohamad E. Allaf, Craig G. Rogers, Michael D. Stifelman, Bartosz F. Kaczmarek, Shahab P. Hillyer, Jeffrey K. Mullins, Yichun Chiu, Sam B. Bhayani
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?