Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy

Gaur, D.D.; Agarwal, Dinesh; Purohit, K.C.; Darshane, A.S.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35124-8

Cited by 115 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The outcomes of LP were firstly published by Gaur et al [17] LP performed for the management of staghorn stones was also reported by Gaur et al [18] . In a meta-analysis conducted in 2013, the authors considered PNL, and LP as safe, reliable, and effective treatment modalities in large solitary stones bigger than 2 cm, and reported demonstrated shorter operative, and hospital stay times, lesser blood loss, and less frequent postoperative febrile states for PNL procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy in a Horseshoe Kidney

Olcucuoglu

Çamtosun

Biçer

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The horseshoe kidney is the most frequent renal anomaly, with a prevalence of 0.25% and a male to female ratio of 2:1. In this article we aimed to report a 50-year-old man who had left kidney stones accompanied with a horseshoe kidney. In this case percutaneous nephrolithotomy was deemed to be a risky procedure due to malrotation of the pelviocalyceal system and possible interposition of bowel loops between kidney and the abdominal wall. Therefore, we preferred laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. At the end of the procedure, the patient was stone-free. We observed no complication. The patient was discharged after 72 hours. We assume that laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is a safe and effective approach for renal pelvic stone in case of horseshoe kidney.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy in a Horseshoe Kidney

Olcucuoglu

Çamtosun

Biçer

et al. 2014

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A third non-randomized controlled trial by Gaur and colleagues 23 reported a mean operative time of 116 minutes for LPL, compared with 152 minutes for PNL (p value not stated). The longer time of LPL in our study was usually related to the long learning curve of LPL as well as the time needed for intracorporeal suturing and delivery of the stone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Haggag

Morsy

Badr

et al. 2013

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of the study is to investigate whether laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) could be used to manage large renal pelvic stones, generally considered excellent indications for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Methods: This study was performed from May 2009 to March 2012 at Al-Azhar University Hospitals (Assiut and Cairo), Egypt. It included two groups of patients with large renal pelvic stones; only patients with stones 2.5 cm 2 or greater were included. Group 1 included 40 patients treated by PNL and Group 2 included 10 patients treated by LPL. The differences between the two procedures were compared and analyzed. Results: There was no difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics and stone size. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding mean estimated blood loss (65 ± 12.25 [range: 52.75-77.25] vs. 180 ± 20.74 [range: 159.26-200.74] mL, p ≤ 0001), mean hospital stay (2.3 ± 0.64 [range: 1.66-2.94] vs. 3.7 ± 1.4 [range: 2.3-5.1] days, p ≤ 0.006), rate of postoperative blood transfusion (0% vs. 4.8%, p ≤ 0.0024), and stone-free rate (80% vs. 78.6%, p ≤ 0.23). The mean operative time was significantly longer in Group 2 (LPL) (131 ± 22.11 [range: 108.89-153.11) vs. 51.19 ± 24.39 [range: 26.8-75.58] min, p ≤ 0001), respectively. Conclusion: Although PNL is the standard treatment in most cases of renal pelvic stones, LPL is another feasible surgical technique for patients with large renal pelvic stones. IntroductionWith the advances in shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and endourological procedures, such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS), the treatment of urinary stone disease has changed markedly. The indications for open renal surgery to treat renal calculi are limited to special situations; it is needed in only 0.47% to 5.4% of the time.1-4 To treat renal calculi of 2.5 cm 2 or larger in diameter, PNL has been used successfully. With low complication rates, PNL has been accepted as first-line therapy. There are some advantages to laparoscopy despite to its rarity and limited indications. However, advanced experience and high skills are needed for the laparoscopic management of complex stones, such as anatrophric nephrolithotomy. 6,7 With the increase in stone size, success, complications and additional treatment rates differ in patients treated with PNL. 8In centres with established experience in advanced reconstructive laparoscopy, LPL can be a feasible alternative to PNL. 9 In this study, we compared PNL versus LPL in large pelvic stone and investigated the role of LPL. MethodsFrom May 2009 to March 2012, 10 patients with large renal pelvic calculi (2.5 cm 2 or more) were treated with LPL. In the same period, PNL was performed in 42 patients (2 patients had staged bilateral PNL and we therefore excluded from the analysis). An informed written consent was taken from each patient.All patients were documented prospectively in our database. We tallied age, stone location and size. Preoperative complete blood...

show abstract

“…Importance of laparascopic pyelolithotomy was known after the study of Gaur et al (14). Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is an alternative method for PNL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic Stone Surgery: One Surgeon Experience

Çalışkan

Sungur

2017

J Minim Invasive Surg Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Laparoscopic stone surgery has some advantages in the anatomical anomalies, comcominant of ureteropelvic junction obstruction and stone, symptomatic stone of diverticulosis, impacted large renal and ureteral stones. The results of the patients' characteristics and complications who underwent laparoscopic surgery were evaluated and presented. Methods:The patients who were treated by laparoscopic surgery from January 2014 to June 2016 for ureteral and kidney stone were reviewed retrospectively. Transperitoneal method was performed in all patients. In this method; near 1 cm from the umbilicus was incised for to access the abdomen. CO2 was used to create pneumoperitoneum. Operation time, duration of hospitalization, the complications were recorded during and after the surgery. Results: There are 2 female and 5 male patients. The mean age of the patients and stone size was 46.28 + 15.52 years and 25.28 + 5.17 mm respectively. Average hospital stay was 4 + 3.94 days. There was no major complications Such as bleeding, injury to internal organs During surgery. One patient (% 14.28) was converted to open surgery. The mean operation time of the remaining patients was 152 + 57.61 minutes. The stone free rate was 100%. Double j stent was inserted into four patient during the operation and one patient in postoperative period. The patients who underwent pyelolithotomy did not need stent placement. Percutaneousnephrostomy was performed in one patients because of prolonged drainage and ureteral stricture (16.66%) was detected in postoperative period. Conclusions: Laparoscopic stone surgery has a high succes rate. The urologist who were taken basic training of laparoscopy can be performed succesfully.

show abstract

Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy

Cited by 115 publications

References 5 publications

Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy in a Horseshoe Kidney

Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy in a Horseshoe Kidney

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

Laparoscopic Stone Surgery: One Surgeon Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About