Comparative study of transperitoneal laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy techniques

IF 0.6 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urological Science Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.4103/uros.uros_83_20
S. Mhaske, V. Sabale, V. Satav, Sonu Sharma, Shashikant Asabe, Hareesh Belagalli
{"title":"Comparative study of transperitoneal laparoscopic versus retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy techniques","authors":"S. Mhaske, V. Sabale, V. Satav, Sonu Sharma, Shashikant Asabe, Hareesh Belagalli","doi":"10.4103/uros.uros_83_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the surgical management of ureterolithiasis. Materials and Methods: The current prospective study was conducted at the Department of Urology, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College. The complete patient medical history including patient's age, sex, stone (size, number, and laterality), and past history of stone surgeries were evaluated. Based on the treatment method, the patients were divided into TPLU and RPLU group. Both the procedures were evaluated for parameters including operative technique, operating time, hospital stay, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion rate, success rate, and surgical ergonomics. Results: A total of 50 patients were included (TPLU, n = 25; and RPLU, n = 25). The average age was 43.6 years in the TPLU and 46.7 years in the RPLU group. The average size of calculi was >15 mm in both the groups. The operation time and blood loss were relatively higher in the TPLU group than RPLU group. The complete stone clearance was observed in both the groups. The pain in loin area and burning micturition were the most common complaints reported by the patients from both the groups. One patient from RPLU group was converted to open surgery. The calculi size in TPLU group was positively correlated with operative time (r = 0.535, P = 0.006), blood loss (r = 0.440, P = 0.028), and hospital stay (r = 0.430, P = 0.032). Conclusion: TPLU and RPLU are feasible techniques for the management of large ureteric stones that are not amenable to ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shockwave therapy.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"33 1","pages":"9 - 13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/uros.uros_83_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the surgical management of ureterolithiasis. Materials and Methods: The current prospective study was conducted at the Department of Urology, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College. The complete patient medical history including patient's age, sex, stone (size, number, and laterality), and past history of stone surgeries were evaluated. Based on the treatment method, the patients were divided into TPLU and RPLU group. Both the procedures were evaluated for parameters including operative technique, operating time, hospital stay, intra- and postoperative complications, conversion rate, success rate, and surgical ergonomics. Results: A total of 50 patients were included (TPLU, n = 25; and RPLU, n = 25). The average age was 43.6 years in the TPLU and 46.7 years in the RPLU group. The average size of calculi was >15 mm in both the groups. The operation time and blood loss were relatively higher in the TPLU group than RPLU group. The complete stone clearance was observed in both the groups. The pain in loin area and burning micturition were the most common complaints reported by the patients from both the groups. One patient from RPLU group was converted to open surgery. The calculi size in TPLU group was positively correlated with operative time (r = 0.535, P = 0.006), blood loss (r = 0.440, P = 0.028), and hospital stay (r = 0.430, P = 0.032). Conclusion: TPLU and RPLU are feasible techniques for the management of large ureteric stones that are not amenable to ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shockwave therapy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经腹腔镜输尿管取石术与后腹腔镜输尿管取石术的比较研究
目的:评价经腹腔腹腔镜输尿管取石术(TPLU)和后腹腔腹腔镜输尿管取石术(RPLU)在输尿管结石手术治疗中的有效性和安全性。材料和方法:目前的前瞻性研究是在帕蒂尔医学院泌尿外科进行的。评估患者的完整病史,包括患者的年龄、性别、结石(大小、数量和侧边性)和既往结石手术史。根据治疗方法将患者分为TPLU组和RPLU组。评估两种手术的参数包括手术技术、手术时间、住院时间、手术内和术后并发症、转换率、成功率和手术工效学。结果:共纳入患者50例(TPLU, n = 25;RPLU, n = 25)。TPLU组平均年龄为43.6岁,RPLU组平均年龄为46.7岁。两组结石平均大小均为50 ~ 15 mm。TPLU组手术时间和出血量均高于RPLU组。两组均观察到结石完全清除。腰痛和排尿灼烧是两组患者最常见的主诉。RPLU组1例转为开腹手术。TPLU组结石大小与手术时间(r = 0.535, P = 0.006)、出血量(r = 0.440, P = 0.028)、住院时间(r = 0.430, P = 0.032)呈正相关。结论:TPLU和RPLU是治疗输尿管镜检查或体外冲击波治疗无效的大结石的可行技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical guidelines of patient-centered bladder management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction due to chronic spinal cord injury – Part 3: Surgical treatment in chronic spinal cord injured patients Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: Clinicopathological profile and outcomes “Rule of Five” in Ureteral Dilatation and its Role in Ureteral Access Sheath Placement during Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Testicular tumor patients presented with scrotal violation-nonstandard surgical approach and its survival rate Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the functional urology guidelines
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1