BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery through the retroperitoneal approach has been seldom reported. We aimed to compare the feasibility and outcomes of LESS and conventional laparoscopic surgery via the retroperitoneal approach in the management of large, impacted ureteral stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2010 to May 2011, LESS ureterolithotomy through the retroperitoneal approach was performed in 10 patients (the LESS group). Another 15 patients who underwent conventional retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (the conventional laparoscopic group) by the same surgeon were involved and compared. The operative time, complications, and surgical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: All the operations were completed successfully, without conversion to conventional laparoscopic or open surgeries. The operative time of the LESS group and of the conventional laparoscopic group were 132.7±16.3 and 128.1±20.1 minutes, respectively (P=0.782). The estimated blood loss were 30.7±5.9 vs 28.0±4.5 mL (P=0.620). Duration of analgesia postoperatively was 2.0±0.8 vs 3.5±0.5 days (P=0.005). All targeted stones were successfully extracted without major complications. Postoperative urine leakage was noted in one patient in each group. Cosmetic results were superior in the LESS group according to both the study nurse's and the patients' assessments (8.5 vs 5.3; P=0.012, and 8.3 vs 5.6; P=0.025, respectively). All patients showed no obstructions or stricture formations on postoperative follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, LESS for ureterolithotomy through the retroperitoneal approach is feasible and can acquire outcomes equal to those of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery. Prospective long-term follow-up studies with a larger number of patients are needed to further evaluate its benefits.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery through the retroperitoneal approach has been seldom reported. We aimed to compare the feasibility and outcomes of LESS and conventional laparoscopic surgery via the retroperitoneal approach in the management of large, impacted ureteral stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2010 to May 2011, LESS ureterolithotomy through the retroperitoneal approach was performed in 10 patients (the LESS group). Another 15 patients who underwent conventional retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (the conventional laparoscopic group) by the same surgeon were involved and compared. The operative time, complications, and surgical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: All the operations were completed successfully, without conversion to conventional laparoscopic or open surgeries. The operative time of the LESS group and of the conventional laparoscopic group were 132.7±16.3 and 128.1±20.1 minutes, respectively (P=0.782). The estimated blood loss were 30.7±5.9 vs 28.0±4.5 mL (P=0.620). Duration of analgesia postoperatively was 2.0±0.8 vs 3.5±0.5 days (P=0.005). All targeted stones were successfully extracted without major complications. Postoperative urine leakage was noted in one patient in each group. Cosmetic results were superior in the LESS group according to both the study nurse's and the patients' assessments (8.5 vs 5.3; P=0.012, and 8.3 vs 5.6; P=0.025, respectively). All patients showed no obstructions or stricture formations on postoperative follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In experienced hands, LESS for ureterolithotomy through the retroperitoneal approach is feasible and can acquire outcomes equal to those of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery. Prospective long-term follow-up studies with a larger number of patients are needed to further evaluate its benefits.
Authors: Riccardo Autorino; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Mihir M Desai; Matthew Gettman; Inderbir S Gill; Louis R Kavoussi; Estevão Lima; Francesco Montorsi; Lee Richstone; Jens U Stolzenburg; Jihad H Kaouk Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kyung Hwa Choi; Won Sik Ham; Koon Ho Rha; Jae Won Lee; Hwang Gyun Jeon; Francis Raymond P Arkoncel; Seung Choul Yang; Woong Kyu Han Journal: Korean J Urol Date: 2011-01-24
Authors: Miguel Arrabal-Martín; Manuel Pareja-Vilches; Francisco Gutiérrez-Tejero; José Luis Miján-Ortiz; Francisco Palao-Yago; Armando Zuluaga-Gómez Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 20.096