Retroperitoneoscopy for treatment of renal and ureteral stones

Soares, Rodrigo Silva Quintela; Romanelli, Pedro; Sandoval, Marcos A.; Salim, Marcelo M.; Távora, José Eduardo Fernandes; Abelha, David L.

doi:10.1590/s1677-55382005000200004

Cited by 20 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…for laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. Soares et al [11] reported an operative time of 140 (66-260) minutes in their study. Adel Hunayun et al [16] reported an operative time of 112.1 minutes for laparoscopic pyelolithotomy in their study.…”

Section: Operative Timementioning

confidence: 83%

“…Similar results were reported by Goel et al [6] in their study, in which the hospital stay for laparoscopic pyelolithotomy patients was 3-4 days. Soares et al [11] reported that, in their study, the average hospital stay was 3 days (range 1-10) for laparoscopic pyelolithotomy patients.…”

Section: Hospital Staymentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Brandan Kamer et al [14] reported an average blood loss of 50 mL. Adel Hunayun et al [11] reported blood loss of 57.2 mL.…”

Section: Blood Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy and open pyelolithotomy: a comparative study

Patloo¹,

Sarmast²,

Khan³

et al. 2012

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and open pyelolithotomy at a single center in terms of operative time, blood loss, intra-and post-operative complications, analgesia requirements, hospital stay, convalescence and cosmesis. Material and methods:This prospective randomized study was conducted in the Department of Surgery of the Government Medical College Srinagar between May 2008 and September 2010. Sixty patients underwent pyelolithotomy during this period, including both open pyelolithotomy (n=30) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy (n=30). All patients (age >14 yr) with large (>1.5 cm) renal pelvic stones who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The decision to perform open or laparoscopic pyelolithotomy was made randomly by a computer program. Results:The majority of our patients in both study groups were in the 21-40 yr age group. The mean operative time was significantly less (p<0.001) in the open group than in the laparoscopic group (74.83 min vs. 94.43 min). The mean blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (73 mL vs. 103 mL); however, this difference was not statistically significant. In the laparoscopic group, both the resumption of oral intake (10.33 hrs vs. 15.60 hrs) and the drain removal (2.7 days vs. 3 days) occurred earlier, although these differences were not significant. Intraoperative complications occurred more frequently in the laparoscopic group (16% versus 6.66%); however, all of the complications were minor and were managed intraoperatively in the same sitting. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative pain scores or analgesia requirements, and postoperative complications were only slightly more frequent in the laparoscopic group in our study. The mean hospital stay in the open group was 5.2 days, while the mean stay of the laparoscopic group was 3.8 days (p<0.03). Patients in the laparoscopic group returned to their routine activities significantly earlier (1.78 vs. 3.83 wks) than did patients in the open group (p<0.001). Conclusion:Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy for upper urinary tract calculi is superior to open surgery because of the significantly reduced hospital stays and cosmetic outcomes of patients who underwent the laparoscopic surgery. Although the reductions of analgesia requirements and blood loss were not statistically significant in our study, the data still favored the laparoscopic procedure. Disadvantages of retroperitoneal laparoscopy include the decreased working space, the cost of equipment and the availability of a trained surgeon.

show abstract

Section: Operative Timementioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Hospital Staymentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy and open pyelolithotomy: a comparative study

Patloo¹,

Sarmast²,

Khan³

et al. 2012

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, these studies are inadequate, because they are nonrandomized and retrospective in nature; in these studies, either the stent has been used in all cases or has been used in the later half of the study after the initial few patients had prolonged drainage, or it was used to reduce the duration of drainage postoperatively in patients who had already undergone an operation [3,4,10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the role of preoperative Double-J ureteral stenting in retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In patients presenting with impacted large stones, particularly those located in the proximal ureter, open surgery provides the benefit of removing the stone in one procedure (1,2). the use of laparoscopy in the field of urology has progressed significantly in recent years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A modified laparoscopic ureterolithotomy by pulling ureter with Carter–Thomason fascial closure and ureter incision by broken 15th blade

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a modified laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of upper ureteral stones; this method involved the use of a carter-thomason fascial closure device, a broken 15th blade.Material and Methods: from february 2009 to december 2012, 38 patients with unilateral upper ureteral stones were examined and classified into 2 groups: one group underwent conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (n = 21) and the other group underwent modified laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (n = 17). the modified laparoscopic ureterolithotomy consisted of the use of a carter-thomason fascial closure to extract the black silk along with the nylon tape. the ureter incision was made with a modified instrument consisting of a needle holder with a broken 15th blade tip.Results and Conclusions: patient demographics were similar in both groups. no significant differences were detected between the conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and modified laparoscopic ureterolithotomy groups with respect to operating time, estimated blood loss, and stone clearance rates. drain-indwelling times were significantly shorter in modified laparoscopic ureterolithotomy patients than in conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy patients (3.2 ± 1.3 vs 4.7 ± 1.5 days). hospital stay was significantly lesser in modified laparoscopic ureterolithotomy patients than in conventional laparoscopic ureterolithotomy patients (4.3 ± 1.2 vs 5.2 ± 1.2 days). no differences were detected in the ureteral stent indwelling time for the two groups. the use of the carter-thomason fascial

show abstract

Retroperitoneoscopy for treatment of renal and ureteral stones

Abstract: Retroperitoneoscopy is an effective, low-morbidity alternative for treatment of urinary stones.

Cited by 20 publications

References 19 publications

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy and open pyelolithotomy: a comparative study

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy and open pyelolithotomy: a comparative study

Evaluation of the role of preoperative Double-J ureteral stenting in retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy

A modified laparoscopic ureterolithotomy by pulling ureter with Carter–Thomason fascial closure and ureter incision by broken 15th blade

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About