Literature DB >> 8996332

The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of renal and ureteral calculi.

S Micali1, R G Moore, T D Averch, J B Adams, L R Kavoussi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of laparoscopy in the treatment of renal and ureteral stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic stone extraction was attempted in 11 men and 6 women 22 to 75 years old, including 6 with ureteral and 11 with renal calculi. Of the renal stones 9 were associated with a concomitant pathological condition requiring surgery. Four patients had multiple stones (2 to 93) and stone size ranged from 2 to 60 mm. (mean 15.6).
RESULTS: Stones from 15 of 17 patients were removed successfully via laparoscopic techniques. Operative time ranged from 2.33 to 6.35 hours (mean 4.9). Prolonged operating times were associated with ancillary or failed procedures. Blood loss ranged from 20 to 350 ml. (mean 132.9), narcotic requirement from 0 to 100 mg. morphine (mean 26) and hospital stay from 1 to 15 days (mean 4.5). The 3 postoperative complications included prolonged ileus (2) and a retroperitoneal urinoma requiring secondary drainage.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic stone removal is safe and feasible. Indications for this approach include urinary stones associated with an anatomical abnormality requiring urinary tract reconstruction and calculi for which other minimally invasive therapies failed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 8996332

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


  18 in total

1.  The laparoscopic stylet.

Authors:  I Gülmez; D Demirci; O Ekmekçioğlu
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 2.  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

3.  Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: minimally invasive second line treatment.

Authors:  Costantino Leonardo; Giuseppe Simone; Papalia Rocco; Salvatore Guaglianone; Giovanni Di Pierro; Michele Gallucci
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  [Comparison of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal pelvic stones larger than 2.5 cm].

Authors:  Xiao-Yong Pu; Jiu-Min Liu; Xue-Cheng Bi; Dong Li; Shang Huang; Yan-Hua Feng; Chu-Qi Lin
Journal:  Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao       Date:  2016-02-20

Review 5.  [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

Review 6.  Ureteropelvic obstruction and renal stones: etiology and treatment.

Authors:  Andreas Skolarikos; Andreas Dellis; Thomas Knoll
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-11-02       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  Laparoscopic management of a large staghorn stone.

Authors:  Patrick Richard; Mathieu Bettez; Arold Martel; Yves Ponsot; Robert Sabbagh
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.862

8.  Minimal access surgery in the management of pediatric urolithiasis.

Authors:  Ana Catarina Fragoso; Henry Steyaert; Pierre Arnaud; Ciro Esposito; Jose Estevao-Costa; Jean-Stephane Valla
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2016-10

9.  Comparative study of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large renal pelvic stones.

Authors:  Yasser M Haggag; Gamal Morsy; Magdy M Badr; Abdel Baset A Al Emam; Mourad Farid; Mohamed Etafy
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

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.