Literature DB >> 12544292

Minimally invasive retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy.

A K Hemal1, Apul Goel, Rajiv Goel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of modified technique of retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy for managing ureteral stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 1999 and March 2002, 31 patients underwent retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy. In most cases only 3 ports (a 10 mm., 2 5 mm. and in a few 2, 3 mm.) were used without any ureteral stent or catheter. The stone was removed from the primary port site, while visualizing retrieval through the 3/5 mm. port using fine laparoscope. Ureterotomy closure was performed by intracorporeal interrupted sutures of 4-zero polyglactin.
RESULTS: The 20 males and 11 females had a mean age of 38.5 years. Mean operative time was 67 minutes and mean hospital stay was 2.4 days. The mean analgesic requirement was 42.2 mg. meperidine. Mean followup was 8 months. There were no significant postoperative complications except persistent urine leakage in 2 patients 48 hours after surgery. An internal stent was placed and leakage subsided without any consequences.
CONCLUSIONS: The modified, minimally invasive technique of retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy is highly effective and efficient without an associated increase in the complication rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12544292     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000046639.98768.2e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  18 in total

Review 1.  Laparoscopic urinary stone surgery: an updated evidence-based review.

Authors:  Andreas Skolarikos; Athanasios G Papatsoris; Stefanos Albanis; Dean Assimos
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2010-04-16

2.  Application of a temporary ureter clamp for retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.

Authors:  Xingqiao Wen; Xiaojuan Li; Jie Situ; Youqiang Fang; Xiaodong Chen; Xingxing Ruan; Yu Wang; Xin Gao
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-05-29       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  Retroperitoneoscopic versus open mini-incision ureterolithotomy for upper- and mid-ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Jai Prakash; Vishwajeet Singh; Manoj Kumar; Manoj Kumar; Rahul Janak Sinha; Satyanarayan Sankhwar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-11-23       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 4.  [Importance of open and laparoscopic stone surgery].

Authors:  M Hruza; C Türk; T Frede; J Rassweiler
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for the management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction in horseshoe kidney: our initial experience.

Authors:  Rahul Janak Sinha; Ankur Jhanwar; Vishwajeet Singh; Gaurav Prakash
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2016-07-08

6.  Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; which is better: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach?

Authors:  Mostafa Khalil; Rabea Omar; Shabieb Abdel-Baky; Ahmed Mohey; Ahmed Sebaey
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2015-12

7.  Does a retropulsion prevention device equalize the surgical success of Ho:YAG laser and pneumatic lithotripters for upper ureteral stones? A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Sahin Bagbanci; Mumtaz Dadali; Yeliz Dadalı; Levent Emir; Ozkan Gorgulu; Ayhan Karabulut
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Robotic extended pyelolithotomy for complete staghorn calculus.

Authors:  Rene Sotelo; Juan Carlos Astigueta; Camilo Giedelman; Robert de Andrade; Oswaldo Carmona; Daniel Ramirez; Rafael Clavijo
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2010-05-26

Review 9.  Imaging for kidney stones.

Authors:  P N Rao
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 4.226

10.  Evaluation of role of retroperitoneoscopic pyelolithotomy and its comparison with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy.

Authors:  Apul Goel; A K Hemal
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.370

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.