BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery for ureteral stones was restricted to special cases-those with large or impacted ureteral stones. We present special cases of patients who underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy at various clinics in Turkey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients were included in the study from five urology clinics in which laparoscopic surgery was being performed. After a disease-specific history and physical examination, age and sex were recorded. The mean patient age was 41.8 years (30 men and 11 women). Urinalysis, determination of creatinine level, intravenous urography, and ultrasonography were performed. The parameters of stone size, presence of hydronephrosis, previous shockwave lithotripsy, previous ureteroscopic stone therapy, type of laparoscopic approach, operative time, ureteral incision, insertion of a Double-J stent, amount of drainage, hospitalization period, and perioperative complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean ureteral stone size was 22 mm. The retroperitoneoscopic approach was preferred in 35 (85.3%) patients, while the transperitoneal approach was used in 6 (14.7%) patients. Grade I hydronephrosis was detected in 4 patients, grade 2 in 22 patients, and grade 3 in 12 patients. In six patients, a history of shockwave lithotripsy was confirmed. The ureteral wall was incised with a cold knife in 5, scissors in 16, J-hook in 3, and a monopolar or bipolar dissector in 17 patients. In six patients, a Double-J stent was inserted, while in one patient, the operation was converted to an open procedure. The mean operative time was 124 minutes. The mean amount of drainage was 220 ml. Mean hospitalization time was 4.8 days. In five (12.5%) of seven patients, persistent drainage was a major complication that was managed by insertion of a Double-J stent. All patients were discharged stone free. CONCLUSION: Increased hospitalization and operative time can be related to the large stone sizes and prolonged urine leakage. In our opinion, however, the overall success of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy makes it a feasible and effective procedure, especially for stones that could not be managed easily with ureteroscopic stone therapy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery for ureteral stones was restricted to special cases-those with large or impacted ureteral stones. We present special cases of patients who underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy at various clinics in Turkey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients were included in the study from five urology clinics in which laparoscopic surgery was being performed. After a disease-specific history and physical examination, age and sex were recorded. The mean patient age was 41.8 years (30 men and 11 women). Urinalysis, determination of creatinine level, intravenous urography, and ultrasonography were performed. The parameters of stone size, presence of hydronephrosis, previous shockwave lithotripsy, previous ureteroscopic stone therapy, type of laparoscopic approach, operative time, ureteral incision, insertion of a Double-J stent, amount of drainage, hospitalization period, and perioperative complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean ureteral stone size was 22 mm. The retroperitoneoscopic approach was preferred in 35 (85.3%) patients, while the transperitoneal approach was used in 6 (14.7%) patients. Grade I hydronephrosis was detected in 4 patients, grade 2 in 22 patients, and grade 3 in 12 patients. In six patients, a history of shockwave lithotripsy was confirmed. The ureteral wall was incised with a cold knife in 5, scissors in 16, J-hook in 3, and a monopolar or bipolar dissector in 17 patients. In six patients, a Double-J stent was inserted, while in one patient, the operation was converted to an open procedure. The mean operative time was 124 minutes. The mean amount of drainage was 220 ml. Mean hospitalization time was 4.8 days. In five (12.5%) of seven patients, persistent drainage was a major complication that was managed by insertion of a Double-J stent. All patients were discharged stone free. CONCLUSION: Increased hospitalization and operative time can be related to the large stone sizes and prolonged urine leakage. In our opinion, however, the overall success of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy makes it a feasible and effective procedure, especially for stones that could not be managed easily with ureteroscopic stone therapy.