Journals / Van Tıp Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2

Our Experiences of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy in the Treatment of Ureteral Stone

Üreter Taşı Tedavisinde Transperitoneal ve Retroperitoneal Laparoskopik Üreterolitotomi Deneyimlerimiz

Pages
153–157
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The experience of the surgeon in selecting the laparoscopic method is important.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: In this study, we presented our experience of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones and evaluated these two methods comparatively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: The data of 41 patients who underwent laparoscopy for upper or middle ureteral stones were analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The experience of the surgeon in selecting the laparoscopic method is important.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: In this study, we presented our experience of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones and evaluated these two methods comparatively. Material and Method: The data of 41 patients who underwent laparoscopy for upper or middle ureteral stones were analyzed. The stone size of the patients who underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy was more than 15 mm, unilateral, impacted and upper of the sacroiliac junction. Gender, age, side and size of ureteral stones, operation time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay and complications were evaluated in all patients. Results: The mean duration of operation was 119,52,12 in the LRU group and 105,54,94 in the LTU group. Compared with the operation techniques, it is statistically shorter in LTU group than LTU group (p <0.05). When we compared the periods of return to daily activities after operation, LRU was found to be significantly shorter. Stoneless rates were similar in both groups. Conclusion: In less experienced centres, the transperitoneal method is more advantageous than the retroperitoneal method because of its wider operative area, regular anatomy, and ease of suturing. In the retroperitoneal approach, short hospital stay, early drainage, and ureteral catheter withdrawal are avantages. The experience of the surgeon in selecting the laparoscopic method is important.

Özet

Giriş: Yapılan bu çalışmada proksimal üreter taşlarının tedavisinde uygulanan retroperitoneal ve transperitoneal laparoskopik üreterolitotomi deneyimlerimizi aktardık ve bu iki yöntemi birbiriyle karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirdik. Gereç ve Yöntem: Üst veya orta üreter taşları için laparoskopi uygulanan 41 hastanın verileri analiz edildi. Laparoskopik üreterolitotomi planlanan hastaların taş boyutu 15 mm’den fazla, tek taraflı, impakte ve sakroiliak bileşke üzerinde idi. Cinsiyet, yaş, üreter taşlarının tarafı ve boyutu, ameliyat süresi, kan kaybı, ameliyat sonrası hastanede kalış süresi ve komplikasyonlar tüm hastalarda restrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Ortalama ameliyat süresi laparoskopik retroperitoneal laparoskopi grubunda 119,52,12 ve transperitonel yapılan grupta 105,54,94 olarak belirlendi. Operasyon teknikleri karşılaştırıldığına, transperitoneal yöntem retroperitoneal yönteme göre istatistiksel anlamlı olarak daha kısa sürmektedir (p<0,05). Operasyon sonrası günlük aktivitelere dönüş süreleri karşılaştırıldığında ise retroperitonel yapılan grupta anlamlı olarak daha kısa bulunmuştur. Taşsızlık oranları her iki grupta da benzerdir. Tartışma: Daha az tecrübesi olanlarda transperitoneal yöntem retroperitoneal yönteme göre daha avantajlıdır, çünkü daha geniş operasyon alanı, düzenli bir anatomi ve sütür atma kolaylığı mevcuttur. Retroperitoneal yöntemde kısa hastanede kalış süresi, daha erken dren ve üreter kateteri çekilmesi avantajlardır. Laparoskopik yöntemin seçiminde cerrahın tecrübesi önemlidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

DURSUN, M., BEŞİROĞLU, H., ÇAKIR, S. S., ÖTÜNÇTEMUR, A. (2019). Our Experiences of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy in the Treatment of Ureteral Stone. Van Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2, 153–157. https://ajindex.com/articles/333690

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Nambirajan T, Jeschke S, Albqami N, Abukora F, Leeb K, Janetschek G. Role of laparoscopy in management of renal stones: single-center experience and review of literature. J Endourol 2005; 19(3): 353-359
  2. Basiri A, Simforoosh N, Ziaee A, Shayaninasab H, Moghaddam SM, Zare S. Retrograde, antegrade, and laparoscopic approaches for the management of large, proximal ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 2008; 22(12): 2677-2680
  3. Bayraktar AM, Ölçülüoğlu E, Taştemur S ve ark. Laparoskopik Ürolojik Cerrahilerdeki Erken Dönem Sonuçlarımız: İlk 32 vaka Fırat Tıp Dergisi 2014; 19(2): 75-78 4. Simforoosh N, Aminsharifi A. Laparoscopic management in stone disease. Current opinion in urology 2013; 23(2): 169-174
  4. Keeley FX, Gıalas I, Pıllaı M, Chrisofos M, Tolley DA. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: The Edinburgh experience. BJU International 1999; 84(7): 765-769
  5. Gaur DD, Agarwal DK, Purohit KC, Darshane AS, Shah BC. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for multiple upper mid ureteral calculi. J Urol 1994; 151(4): 1001-1002
  6. Raboy A, Ferzli GS, Ioffreda R, Albert PS. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Urology 1992; 39(3): 223-225
  7. Park H, Park M, Park T. Two-year experience with ureteral stones: extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy v ureteroscopic manipulation. J Endourol 1998; 12(6): 501-504
  8. El-Nahas A.R, El-Tabey N.A, I. Eraky Shoma AM, El-Hefnawy AS, et al. Semirigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: a multivariate analysis of unfavorable results. J Urol 2009; 181(3): 1158-1162
  9. Wickham JE. The surgical treatment of renal lithiasis; in Wickham JE (ed): Urinary Calculous Disease. Churchill Livingstone, New York 1979; 145-198
  10. Neto ACL, Korkes F, Silva JL 2nd, Amarante RD, Mattos MH, Tobias-Machado M et al. Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol 2012; 187(1): 164-168
  11. Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Jha SK, Singh H. A prospective randomized comparison between laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and semirigid ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones >2 cm: a single-center experience. J Endourol. 2015; 29(11): 1248-1252
  12. Bove P, Micali S, Miano R, Mirabile G, De Stafani S, Botteri E et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a comparison between the transperitoneal and the retroperitoneal approach during the learning curve. J Endourol. 2009; 23(6): 953-957
  13. McAllister M, Bhayani SB,