A Goel1, A K Hemal. 1. Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review our experience of retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPUL) and to compare the results with those from open surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 1994 and mid-December 2000, 55 patients with large (mean 2.1 cm) upper and mid-ureteric calculi, and with normal renal values, underwent RPUL. In 22 patients, earlier attempts with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy had failed. These patients were compared with 26 (mean stone size 2.4 cm) who underwent open ureterolithotomy during the same period. The two groups had similar distributions for age, sex, stone size and stone location; most stones were calcium-based. RESULTS: The mean operative duration and blood loss for RPUL and open surgery were 108.8 and 98.8 min, and 58.5 and 50.5 mL, respectively (not significant). The mean analgesic (pethidine) requirement and hospital stay for RPUL and open surgery were 41.1 and 96.9 mg, and 3.3 and 4.8 days, respectively (P<0.001). The duration of convalescence was significantly less after RPUL than open surgery (1.8 weeks vs 3.1). There were 10 conversions, which occurred early in the series, and one significant complication amongst patients who underwent RPUL. CONCLUSIONS: RPUL is comparable with open surgery for operative duration and blood loss, but the laparoscopic procedure has significant advantages over open surgery for analgesia, hospital stay, recuperation and cosmesis. RPUL is a viable alternative for large upper and mid-ureteric calculi and in those patients where a previous attempt at endourological management has failed. However, the technique requires significant training and experience before good results can be obtained.
OBJECTIVES: To review our experience of retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPUL) and to compare the results with those from open surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between March 1994 and mid-December 2000, 55 patients with large (mean 2.1 cm) upper and mid-ureteric calculi, and with normal renal values, underwent RPUL. In 22 patients, earlier attempts with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy had failed. These patients were compared with 26 (mean stone size 2.4 cm) who underwent open ureterolithotomy during the same period. The two groups had similar distributions for age, sex, stone size and stone location; most stones were calcium-based. RESULTS: The mean operative duration and blood loss for RPUL and open surgery were 108.8 and 98.8 min, and 58.5 and 50.5 mL, respectively (not significant). The mean analgesic (pethidine) requirement and hospital stay for RPUL and open surgery were 41.1 and 96.9 mg, and 3.3 and 4.8 days, respectively (P<0.001). The duration of convalescence was significantly less after RPUL than open surgery (1.8 weeks vs 3.1). There were 10 conversions, which occurred early in the series, and one significant complication amongst patients who underwent RPUL. CONCLUSIONS: RPUL is comparable with open surgery for operative duration and blood loss, but the laparoscopic procedure has significant advantages over open surgery for analgesia, hospital stay, recuperation and cosmesis. RPUL is a viable alternative for large upper and mid-ureteric calculi and in those patients where a previous attempt at endourological management has failed. However, the technique requires significant training and experience before good results can be obtained.
Authors: Thomas H Forster; Gernot Bonkat; Stephen Wyler; Robin Ruszat; Nicole Ebinger; Thomas C Gasser; Alexander Bachmann Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.704