PURPOSE: The surgical management of retroperitoneal fibrosis has traditionally involved open ureterolysis. We compared laparoscopic and open ureterolysis to determine if the minimally invasive approach offered advantages with respect to perioperative morbidity and treatment efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our retroperitoneal fibrosis database at a single institution to identify all patients who underwent open or laparoscopic ureterolysis between 1995 and 2005. Clinical, perioperative and outcome data were prospectively collected and compared between the open and laparoscopic ureterolysis cohorts. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with primary retroperitoneal fibrosis comparing outcomes in open and laparoscopic ureterolysis groups. RESULTS: We identified 36 (51.4%) patients who underwent open ureterolysis and 34 (48.6%) who underwent laparoscopic ureterolysis. Conversion to open surgery was required in 17.6% of the laparoscopic ureterolysis cohort. The etiology of obstruction was primary idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis in 35 (50%) patients, whereas the remainder had secondary retroperitoneal fibrosis, largely related to gynecological malignancy. There was no difference between the 2 groups when comparing operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, transfusion requirements and postoperative resolution of ureteral obstruction. Subgroup analysis limited to patients with primary idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis demonstrated that those who underwent laparoscopic ureterolysis had a shorter hospital stay (3.4 vs 10.8, p <0.001) and were less likely to require transfusion (3.7% vs 13.7%, p = 0.007) compared to patients who underwent open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ureterolysis is an excellent option for patients with retroperitoneal fibrosis of all causes with morbidity and efficacy comparable to open surgery. In patients with primary idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis laparoscopy offers the added advantages of shorter hospital stay and reduced transfusion requirements.
PURPOSE: The surgical management of retroperitoneal fibrosis has traditionally involved open ureterolysis. We compared laparoscopic and open ureterolysis to determine if the minimally invasive approach offered advantages with respect to perioperative morbidity and treatment efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our retroperitoneal fibrosis database at a single institution to identify all patients who underwent open or laparoscopic ureterolysis between 1995 and 2005. Clinical, perioperative and outcome data were prospectively collected and compared between the open and laparoscopic ureterolysis cohorts. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with primary retroperitoneal fibrosis comparing outcomes in open and laparoscopic ureterolysis groups. RESULTS: We identified 36 (51.4%) patients who underwent open ureterolysis and 34 (48.6%) who underwent laparoscopic ureterolysis. Conversion to open surgery was required in 17.6% of the laparoscopic ureterolysis cohort. The etiology of obstruction was primary idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis in 35 (50%) patients, whereas the remainder had secondary retroperitoneal fibrosis, largely related to gynecological malignancy. There was no difference between the 2 groups when comparing operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, transfusion requirements and postoperative resolution of ureteral obstruction. Subgroup analysis limited to patients with primary idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis demonstrated that those who underwent laparoscopic ureterolysis had a shorter hospital stay (3.4 vs 10.8, p <0.001) and were less likely to require transfusion (3.7% vs 13.7%, p = 0.007) compared to patients who underwent open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ureterolysis is an excellent option for patients with retroperitoneal fibrosis of all causes with morbidity and efficacy comparable to open surgery. In patients with primary idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis laparoscopy offers the added advantages of shorter hospital stay and reduced transfusion requirements.
Authors: Stéfanie A Seixas-Mikelus; Susan J Marshall; D Dawon Stephens; Aaron Blumenfeld; Eric D Arnone; Khurshid A Guru Journal: JSLS Date: 2010 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.172