Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized comparison study

Comprehensive endoscopic management of impacted ureteral stones: Literature review and expert opinions

Treatment of urolithiasis, a benign disease, requires high efficacy and safety. Endoscopic treatment of impacted ureteral stones remains a challenging procedure for urologists, despite recent remarkable advances in surgical technology in treatment of urolithiasis. The success rate of endoscopic treatment in patients with impacted stones is reported to be lower than that in patients with nonimpacted stones. Moreover, the presence of stone impaction is associated with high rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications. The best management for patients with impacted ureteral stones should therefore be devised based on the latest knowledge and techniques. The present review focuses on the preoperative prediction of stone impaction, the safest and most effective endoscopic surgical procedures, and the most appropriate management for postoperative ureteral strictures. We overview comprehensive endoscopic management for impacted ureteral stones based on literature review and expert opinions.

Comparison of Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy: A Meta-Analysis

<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TLU and RLU). <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> We undertook a literature search PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Search date will range from inception to January 1, 2020. The final article results will be analyzed using StataSE 12 software. This meta-analysis was reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020160906). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Eleven articles eventually met the requirements, involving a total of 609 patients. The final result shows the operative time (Std. Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.58; 95% CI 0.36–0.80; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01), hospital stay (SMD = 0.26; 95% CI 0.02–0.49; <i>p</i> = 0.031), and the complication of paralytic ileus (risk difference = 0.11; 95% CI 0.05–0.17; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.01) are significant difference between TLU and RLU, and TLU are higher or longer. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Our meta-analysis suggests that if there are no other constraints, it is better to choose RLU. And more clinical trial data are needed to confirm this conclusion.

Recovery of bowel function after transperitoneal or retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty. A multi-center study

AIM

To document the recovery of bowel function (BF) in children after transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) laparoscopic pyeloplasty.

METHODS

Data were obtained retrospectively from four centers between 2008 and 2019 for TP (n = 51) and RP (n = 58). Each surgeon chose which technique to perform.

RESULTS

Subject demographics were not significantly different. Differences in operative times were not significant (RP: 241 min versus TP: 225 min). Mean duration/requirement for postoperative epidural/intravenous analgesia were not significantly different (TP: 1.4 days versus RP: 1.3 days) and (TP: 66.7% versus RP: 67.2%), respectively. Postoperative nasogastric (NG) intubation was more common in RP (TP: 19.6% versus RP: 44.8%; p < .05). NG aspiration (TP: 0.15 mL/kg/hr versus RP: 0.16 mL/kg/hr), nausea (TP: 31.4% versus RP: 17.2%), and vomiting (TP: 19.6% versus RP: 15.5%) were not significantly different. There were no perioperative complications (including ileus). Abdominal distention was problematic in one case per group (TP: 2.0% versus RP: 1.7%). Times for oral liquid (TP: 0.69 day versus RP: 0.83 day), solid food (TP: 0.88 day versus RP 1.07 days), and the first bowel movement (TP: 2.86 days versus RP: 2.79 days), were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

BF recovery would appear to be consistent, independent of technique.

Outcome of Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy (TPLU) for proximal ureteral stone > 15 mm: Our experience with 60 cases

PURPOSE

We aim to review our experience of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU) for proximal ureteric stone more than 15 mm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2017 to December 2020, sixty patients with a history of unsuccessful Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and/or failed ureteroscopy for impacted ureteral calculi more than 15 mm who accepted TPLU were enrolled in our study. The patients' demographic information and post-treatment results were gathered and analyzed, retrospectively.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 46.25 ± 12.56 years. The mean size of the stone was 20.11 ± 4.76 mm. 37 (61.7%) patients had severe hydronephrosis (HDN) and 46 (76.7%) stones were radio-opaque. Almost all of the patients underwent TPLU by a single urologist. The mean operation time was 72.86 ± 6.07 minutes without intraoperative complication (only 3 stones had upward migration to the pyelocaliceal system). The main operative blood loss was 88.86 ml. The average length of stay in the hospital was 45.8 ± 8.11 hours. The stone free rate (SFR) at discharge was 57 (95%). The overall complication rate was 27 (45%). Regarding early complications, fever was found in 8 (13.3%) patients, and 3 patients (5%) had paralytic ileus. The rate of urine leak was 8.3%, and 8 (13.3%) patients required blood transfusions. In multivariate analysis, the multiple stones, bigger stone in size, incomplete SFR, longer duration of hospital admission, and severe HDN were associated with a high early complication rate (p = 0.05, 0.04, < 001, 0.03, and 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TPLU is a harmless option for managing proximal ureteric stone as a primary procedure or salvage procedure with good outcomes and acceptable complication rates.

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteric stones: Surgical technique, outcomes and literature review

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LPU) for the treatment of large proximal ureteric stone.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter analysis for patients with solitary impacted proximal ureteric stone ≥15 mm who underwent LPU from 2016 to 2019 was performed. Primary outcome was to estimate the stone-free rate (SFR). SFR was defined as absence of residual stones on postoperative computed tomography scan. Secondary outcome was to assess the perioperative outcomes, as well as to review literature data of randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing LPU to other treatment options.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were included in our study. Mean stone size was 22.9 ± 5.8 mm and median follow-up was 14 months. Three patients had previous abdominal surgery, one patient had severe degree of scoliosis and six patients failed primary therapy. All stones were extracted successfully (SFR = 100%) without need of auxiliary treatments. Mean operative time and estimated blood loss were 86.6 ± 14.1 minutes. and 11.9 ± 14.7 mL, respectively. No intraoperative complications or conversion to open surgery were reported. No major postoperative complications (≥grade 3) were reported. Mean length of hospital stay was 2 ± 0.8 days.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of large ureteric stones, our study showed that LPU achieves 100% stone-free status. When performed by well-trained laparoscopic surgeons, it is safe and has no major perioperative complications. According to our results and literature data, when counseling patients with large impacted proximal ureteral stones, LPU should be advised as the procedure that has the higher SFR, lower auxiliary treatments, and comparable complication rates to other treatments.

Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for large impacted proximal ureteral stones remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones with size greater than 15 mm.

METHODS

A total of 268 patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm who received MPCNL or RPLU procedures were enrolled consecutively between January 2014 and January 2019. Data on surgical outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Demographic and ureteral stone characteristics found between these two groups were not significantly different. The surgical success rate (139/142, 97.9% vs. 121/126, 96.0%, P = 0.595) and stone-free rate after 1 month (139/142, 97.9% vs. 119/126, 94.4%, P = 0.245) of RPLU group were marginally higher than that of the MPCNL group, but there was no significant difference. There was no significant difference in the drop of hemoglobin between the two groups (0.8 ± 0.6 vs. 0.4 ± 0. 2 g/dL, P = 0.621). The mean operative time (68.2 ± 12.5 vs. 87.2 ± 16.8 min, P = 0.041), post-operative analgesics usage (2/121, 1.7% vs. 13/139, 9.4%, P = 0.017), length of hospital stay after surgery (2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 4.8 ± 0.9 days, P < 0.001), double J stent time (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 days, P = 0.027), time of catheterization (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 days, P < 0.001), and time of drainage tube (2.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.6 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001) of MPCNL group were significantly shorter than that of the RPLU group. The complication rate was similar between the two groups (20/121, 16.5% vs. 31/139, 22.3%, P = 0.242).

CONCLUSIONS

MPCNL and RPLU have similar surgical success and stone clearance in treating impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm, while patients undergoing MPCNL had a lower post-operative pain rate and a faster recovery.

Efficacy and safety of various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Purpose

Various surgical options are available for large proximal ureteral stones, such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU). However, the best option remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted a network meta-analysis comparing various surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stones ≥10mm to address current research deficiencies.

Materials and methods

We searched PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to June 2019), as well as citation lists to identify eligible comparative studies. All clinical studies including patients comparing surgical treatments for proximal ureteral stones ≥10mm were included. A standard network meta-analysis was performed with Stata SE 14 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) software to generate comparative statistics. The quality was assessed with level of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software.

Results

A total of 25 studies including 2.888 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Network meta-analyses indicated that LU and PCNL had better stone-free rates and auxiliary procedures. PCNL could result in major complications and severe bleeding. In initial stone-free rate, final stone-free rate, and auxiliary procedures results, SUCRA ranking was: LU> PCNL> URSL> ESWL. In Clavien Dindo score ≥3 complications, SUCRA ranking was: LU> ESWL> URSL> PCNL. In fever, SUCRA ranking was: ESWL> LU> URSL> PCNL. In transfusion, SUCRA ranking was: LU> URSL> ESWL> PCNL. In Cluster analysis, LU had the highest advantages and acceptable side effects. Considering the traumatic nature of PCNL, it should not be an option over URSL. ESWL had the lowest advantages.

Conclusions

LU have the potential to be considered as the first treatment choice of proximal ureteral stone ≥10mm.

Comparative evaluation of retrograde intrarenal surgery, antegrade ureterorenoscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones larger than 1.5 cm

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this article was to compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), antegrade ureterorenoscopy (URS), and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) for impacted proximal ureter stones larger than 1.5 cm in terms of operative data, success, complications, auxiliary treatment rates, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Medical records of patients undergoing RIRS, antegrade URS, or LU were retrospectively reviewed. After exclusion criteria, 122 patients were included in advanced analyses. Patients were divided into 3 groups as RIRS (n = 43), antegrade URS (n = 38) and LU (n = 41).

RESULTS

Operation time was shortest in the antegrade URS and hospitalization time was shortest in the RIRS group (p <0.001 and p <0.001, respectively). VAS scores were lowest in the RIRS group and highest in the LU group (p <0.001). Success (complete stone clearance) rates were 83.7%, 97.4%, and 97.5% in the RIRS, antegrade URS, and LU groups, respectively (p <0.001). Auxiliary treatment rates in the RIRS, antegrade URS, and LU groups were 19.1%, 2.6%, and 4.7%, respectively (p <0.001). Although there was no significant difference in terms of general complication rates, grade II complication rate (blood transfusion) was significantly higher in the antegrade URS group and grade IVb complication rate (urosepsis) was higher in the RIRS group according to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification system (p = 0.007 and p = 0.02, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Antegrade URS or LU are more logical options than RIRS for the treatment of large impacted proximal ureter stones. Between antegrade URS or LU, antegrade URS seems to be a more reasonable option due to its less invasive nature.

Laparoscopic surgery for upper ureteral calculi in geriatric patients: 5 years experience

OBJECTIVE

We have reviewed the success of laparoscopic calculi surgeries in geriatric patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on the laparoscopic ureterolithotomy surgeries performed at our central between January 2014 and January 2019 to treat upper ureteral calculi in geriatric patients. Among the patients who underwent these surgeries, we evaluated data on 24 cases whose records could be fully retrieved.

RESULTS

The age interval of the patients was 60-73 years, and the mean age was 63 ± 3.43 years. The size of the calculi was 19-24 mm, and mean size was 20.2 ± 2.5 mm. Because stone disease was present previously, 5 of these patients underwent endoscopic intervention, whereas two underwent open surgery. Sixteen of these patients had a history of unsuccessful shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) or ureterorenoscopy. The calculi-free rate was 100%. According to the modified Clavien classification, no major perioperative and postoperative complications were observed. The duration of hospital stay was 1-3 days, and the mean duration of stay was 1.6 ± 0.9 days.

CONCLUSION

We believe that owing to the high success and low complication rates, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy can be the first option of treatment for geriatric patients with impacted large calculi, with a history of unsuccessful SWL or ureterorenoscopy (semirigid, flexible).

Semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction:

To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing semi-rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) for the treatment of the large proximal ureteral stone.

Materials and methods:

A systematic literature review was performed in June 2015 using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria.

Results:

Six RCT including 646 patients were analyzed, 325 URS cases (50.3%) and 321 LU cases (49.7%). URS provided a significantly shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −31.26 min; 95%CI −46.88 to −15.64; p<0.0001) and length of hospital stay (WMD = −1.48 days; 95%CI −2.78 to −0.18; p=0.03) than LU. There were no significant differences in terms of overall complications (OR = 0.78; 95%CI 0.21-2.92; p=0.71) and major complications – Clavien ≥3 – (OR = 1.79; 95%CI 0.59-5.42; p=0.30). LU led to a significantly higher initial stone-free rate (OR = 8.65; 95%CI 4.18-17.91; p<0.00001) and final stone-free rate (OR = 6.41; 95%CI 2.24-18.32; p=0.0005) than URS. There was a significantly higher need for auxiliary procedures in URS cases (OR = 6.58; 95%CI 3.42-12.68; p<0.00001).

Conclusions:

Outcomes with LU for larger proximal ureteral calculi are favorable compared to semi-rigid URS and should be considered as a first-line alternative if flexible ureteroscopy is not available. Utilization of flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with semi-rigid ureteroscopy may impact these outcomes, and deserves further systematic evaluation.

Minimally Invasive Surgical Ureterolithotomy Versus Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy for Large Ureteric Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature

CONTEXT

The management of large ureteric stones represents a technical and clinical challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgical ureterolithotomy (MISU) in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) for the treatment of large ureteric stones.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for the conduction of the study, which was registered in the PROSPERO database. Search string was "(laparoscop* OR retroperito* OR robot*) AND ureterolitho*"; database scope included PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and EMBASE. Primary end points were the stone-free (SFR) and complications rates. Secondary end points included operative time and hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were performed for stones 1-2 and >2cm, as well as different lithotripters and ureteroscopes. Meta-analysis and forest-plot diagrams were performed with the RevMan 5.3.5 software.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

After screening 673 publications, seven randomized controlled trials were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. A total of 778 patients were pooled after the elimination of the dropouts. No robotic cohorts were found. Only upper ureteral stones were treated in the included studies. The SFR at discharge and 3 mo was higher with MISU with odds ratios of 6.30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.05, 13.01; I²=0%) and 5.34 (95% CI: 2.41, 8.81; I²=0%), respectively. The most common complications for MISU and URS were conversion to open surgery and stone migration to the renal pelvis, respectively. Favorable results in terms of operative time were observed in the case of URS with a mean difference of 29.5min (95% CI: 14.74, 44.26; I²=98%). Hospitalization time was favorable in the case of URS with a mean difference of 2.08 days (95% CI: 0.96, 3.20; I²=99%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed a significantly higher SFR at discharge and 3 mo for MISU in comparison with URS when upper ureteral stones were treated. Operative and hospitalization time favored URS over MISU.

PATIENT SUMMARY

The current study investigated the literature on the minimally invasive management of large ureteric stones. The available evidence shows that both ureteroscopic lithotripsy and minimally invasive surgical ureterolithotomy could be considered for the treatment of these stones with similar results. The selection of the approach should be based on the advantages and disadvantages of each technique.

Five-Year Single Center Experience for Retroperitoneoscopic Ureterolithotomy

INTRODUCTION

Narrow working space is a major problem to overcome during retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy. We evaluated initial 5 years experience of retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy for large impacted upper ureteral calculi.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2011 and December 2015, a total of 37 consecutive patients were evaluated. A 12-mm camera port at middle of midaxillary line and two 5-mm working ports in posterior axillary line were created. The stone was extracted through the site of camera trocar. A Double-J catheter (DJC) was placed antegradely by four steps (elevating of the proximal shaft, introducing the end of curl, advancing, and twisting) during retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy. A knotless unidirectional barbed suture was applied to the incision site of the ureter in all cases. All patients were followed up at 2 weeks after discharge to remove a DJC and at 6 weeks after discharge to evaluate urinary drainage with intravenous urography.

RESULTS

The mean ± standard deviation for age (years), body mass index (kg/m²), stone size (mm), and postoperative hospital days were 57.9 ± 13.3, 24.6 ± 4.5, 15.5 ± 4.0, and 3.2 ± 1.2, respectively. Stones were successively removed without critical complications such as ureteral stricture in all cases. Total operation time, the time for placing a DJC, and ureteral suturing time at initial three trials were more than 150 minutes, more than 30 minutes, and about 15 minutes, respectively; however, they were about 60 minutes, less than 10 minutes, and about 5 minutes, respectively, in 25 case experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy is a safe and excellent alternative for large impacted upper ureter stone. When performing retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy in the narrow space, our step by step methods, including working port creation, DJC placement, and suturing, will be helpful for surgeons to learn the procedure easily.

The Gachon University Ureteral Narrowing score: A comprehensive standardized system for predicting necessity of ureteral dilatation to treat proximal ureteral calculi

PURPOSE

For treating proximal ureteral calculi, treatment decision has been known still difficult to choose ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) or shockwave lithotripsy. The aims of our study are to identify the possible predictors for necessity of URS and to propose the Gachon University Ureteral Narrowing scoring system (GUUN score) as a helpful predictor.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated 83 consecutive patients who underwent semirigid URS due to proximal ureteral calculi between April 2011 and February 2014 by a single surgeon. We reviewed patient characteristics and pre- and postoperative parameters and surgical records. We divided the patients into 2 groups (group 1, nondilation group; group 2, dilation group) according to whether or not balloon dilation was performed. A stepwise logistic regression was performed to identify the factors that predict dilatation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and areas under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated to GUUN score.

RESULTS

Mean patients' age and their stone size were 48.53±12.90 years and 7.79±2.57 cm, respectively. Significantly smaller stone size (p=0.009), lower stone density (p=0.005), and lower ureteral density differences between ureteral narrowing level and far distal ureter (UD) (p<0.001) were observed in group 1 (n=34) than in group 2 (n=49). GUUN score consists of age, stone size and UD (AUC, 0.938). Overall stone-free clearance rate was 85.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that the GUUN score is an excellent scoring system to predict the necessity of ureteral dilatation for decision making whether or not to perform surgical manipulation.

Prospective randomized comparison between transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty and retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction

Background and Objectives:

To compare laparoscopic transperitoneal versus retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction in a prospective randomized manner and assess overall results with long-term follow-up.

Methods:

In this prospective study, from 2008 to 2012, 112 cases of primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into 2 groups. Group I included patients who underwent transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty, and group II consisted of patients who underwent retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Demographic and clinical characteristics and postoperative and operative data were collected and analyzed. The statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test, χ² test, and Mann-Whitney U test for independent groups, and P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

The total operative time and intracorporeal suturing time were significantly higher in group II than in group I (P < .001). The visual analog scale score for pain on postoperative day 1 and the requirement for tramadol were significantly higher in group I than in group II (P = .004). The hospital stay and the rate of temporary ileus were significantly greater (P < .036 and P < .02, respectively) in group I than in group II. The success rate of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty was 96.4% versus 96.6% with a mean follow-up period of 30.75 ± 4.85 months versus 30.99 ± 5.59 months (P < .88).

Conclusion:

Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty is associated with significantly greater postoperative pain, a higher tramadol dose, a higher rate of ileus, and a longer hospital stay in comparison with retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Although the operative time for retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyeloplasty is significantly longer, the success rate remains the same for both procedures.

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; which is better: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach?

OBJECTIVE

This was a prospective study to compare the outcome of laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LTU) with laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LRU) as a primary treatment for a large stone in the proximal ureter.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 24 patients with a solitary, large (>1.5 cm), and impacted stone in the proximal ureter was selected and randomly divided into two groups. The first group included 13 patients who were treated by LTU, and the second group included 11 patients who were treated by LRU. Patient demographics and stone characteristics as well as the operative and postoperative data of both groups were compared and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics and stone characteristics. The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the LTU group than in the LRU group [116.2±21.8 min vs 137.3±17.9 min, respectively (p=0.02)]. The mean time to oral intake was significantly longer in the LTU group than in the LRU group [21.2±4.9 h vs 15.5±2.8 h, respectively (p=0.002)]. There was significant higher rate (27.3%) of changing to open surgery in LRU (p=0.04). The stone-free rate was significantly higher in the LTU group than in the LRU group [100% vs. 72.8%, respectively (p=0.03)]. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding the mean blood loss, mean hospital stay, mean analgesia dose, blood transfusion rate, postoperative fever, and stone migration during surgery.

CONCLUSION

Both approaches of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy are effective in treating large impacted stones in the proximal ureter. LTU has significantly shorter operative time and lower rate of open conversion but has a significantly longer time to oral intake.

Laparoscopic management of distal ureteric stones in a bilharzial ureter: Results of a single-centre prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of the laparoscopic management of an impacted distal ureteric stone in a bilharzial ureter, as bilharzial ureters are complicated by distal stricture caused by the precipitation of bilharzial ova in the distal ureter. These cases are associated with poorly functioning and grossly hydronephrotic kidneys that hinder the endoscopic manipulation of the coexistent distal high burden of, and long-standing, impacted stones.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, with four trocars, to manage 51 bilharzial patients (33 men and 18 women; mean age 40.13 years) with distal ureteric stones. The ureter was opened directly over the stone and the stone was extracted. A JJ stent was inserted into the ureter, which was then closed with a 4-0 polyglactin running suture.

RESULTS

The mean stone size was 2.73 cm. Conversion to open surgery was required in only one patient. The mean operative duration was 92 min, the postoperative pain score was 20-60, the mean (range) number of analgesic requests after surgery was 1.72 (1-3), comprising once in 21 patients, twice in 23 and thrice in seven. The mean hospital stay was 2.74 days, and the total duration of follow-up was 7-12 months. The stone recurred in four patients and a ureteric stricture was reported in two. All patients were rendered stone-free.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is a safe and effective minimally invasive procedure for distal ureteric stones in a bilharzial ureter with hydronephrosis.

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) with retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) as two minimally invasive techniques in the management of proximal ureteral stones larger than 12 mm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2009 to October 2013, patients with impacted unilateral upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm were enrolled including 182 males and 93 females with a medium age of 40 years (22-72 years). Patients were randomized to receive URSL (139 cases) with semirigid ureteroscope or RPLU (136 cases).

RESULTS

Stone size was similar in RPLU and URSL groups (13.8 ± 1.9 vs 13.6 ± 1.4 mm, P = 0.312). Operating time and hospitalizing days in URSL group were significantly shorter than those in RPLU group (P < 0.001), whereas stone clearance rate was significantly higher in RPLU group (97.1 vs 89.9 %, P = 0.017). Ureteral strictures happened higher in URSL group (5 patients, 3.6 %) than RPLU group (2 patients, 1.5 %) with no statistical significance, while the strictures requiring surgical intervention were significantly higher in URSL group (4 cases) (2.9 vs 0 %, P = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

RPLU could provide better stone clearance rate than semirigid URSL for upper ureteral impacted stones larger than 12 mm. It may also reduce the chance of surgical intervention for postoperative ureteral stricture.

Flexible ureteroscopic renal stone extraction during laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in patients with large upper ureteral stone and small renal stones

INTRODUCTION

We describe laparoscopic ureterolithotomy with renal stone extraction using a stone basket under flexible ureteroscopy. We describe its efficacy through a laparoscopic port and a ureterotomy site in patients with large upper ureteral stone and small renal stones.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and February 2012, we performed laparoscopic ureterolithotomy with renal stone extraction using a stone basket under flexible ureteroscopy in 11 patients who had upper ureteral and renal stones. The retroperitoneal approaches were used in all patients using 3-4 trocars.

RESULTS

All procedures were performed successfully without significant complications. Mean operative time was 78.5 minutes (range: 52-114 minutes). The mean size of ureteral stone was 19.91 mm (range: 15-25 mm). In addition, 25 renal stones (mean size 7.48 mm, range: 2-12 mm) were removed from 11 patients. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.5 days (range: 2-6 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy with renal stone extraction using a stone basket under flexible ureteroscopy can be considered one of treatment modalities for patients with large upper ureteral stones accompanied by renal stones who are indicated in laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.

Should we place ureteral stents in retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy?: Consideration of surgical techniques and complications

Purpose

There is some debate over the necessity of ureteral stenting after laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. We evaluated the need for ureteral stenting after retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU).

Materials and Methods

Between January 2009 and January 2013, 41 patients underwent RLU to remove upper ureteral stones. The retroperitoneal approach was used in all patients by a single surgeon. A double J (D-J) stent was placed in the first 17 patients after the procedure but not in any of the next 24 patients.

Results

The mean patient age, serum creatinine levels, and stone size were not significantly different between the two groups. The stone-free rate was 100%. The mean operative time was significantly shorter in the stentless group than in the stent group (59.48 minutes vs. 77.88 minutes, p<0.001). Parenteral analgesic use and anticholinergic medication use were observed in the stent group only. The blood loss, drain removal day, and hospital stay were not significantly different between the two groups. No other significant complications occurred during or after the operation in any patients.

Conclusions

RLU is a safe and effective treatment modality for large impacted ureteral stones. In this study, D-J stent placement was not necessary after RLU. In the future, large-scale studies of RLU without D-J stenting, especially on the frequency of the development of complications according to the surgical technique, may be needed.

Experience and learning curve of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate clinical experience and learning curve associated with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy performed for upper ureteral stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical data of 50 patients who had undergone retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy between June 2010 and March 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. To assess the learning curve, patients were divided into two groups: Group A (the first 25 cases) and Group B (the last 25 cases). In Group A, double J stents were placed in 17 patients, whereas in Group B 15 patients received double J stents. In Group A, three ports were placed in nine patients and four ports in 16 patients. In Group B, three ports were placed in 20 patients and five patients had four ports. The patients were compared according to demographics, operative time, stone size, complications, hospital stay, and transfusion.

RESULTS

The mean age for Group A was 47.8 ± 14.13 (21-72) years and that for Group B was 44.2 ± 14.98 (22-78) years. Mean operative times were 106.4 ± 38 (55-210) minutes and 70.76 ± 30.4 (30-180) minutes for Groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean hospital stay was 7.12 ± 4.47 (3-22) days and 4.04 ± 2.05 (2-12) days for Groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean stone size was 20.12 ± 5.18 (12-30) mm and 19.44 ± 4.44 (13-28) mm for Groups A and B, respectively (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In our study, as staff experience (in performing laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy) increased, operative time, length of hospital stay, and complication rates have correspondingly declined.

Efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of large proximal ureteric stones and its impact on renal function

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the management of large proximal ureteric stones and the impact of this treatment on postoperative renal function.

METHODS

The data of 12 patients (7 men and 5 women; mean age, 68.5 ± 8.9 years) with large pyeloureteral junction (2 cases) and upper ureteral (10 cases) stones (25.3 ± 7.4 mm) that had undergone retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy were reviewed. Renal function was analyzed by the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and renal scintigraphy using 99mTc-mercaptoacetyltriglycine (99mTc-MAG3) before and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 129.5 ± 21.4 minutes, with a mean blood loss of 64.4 ± 78.2 mL. The mean duration of hospital stay after surgery was 6.4 ± 2.7 days, and the mean duration of stenting was 7.2 ± 1.7 weeks. A stone clearance rate of 100% was achieved, and no patient developed ureteric stricture. 99mTc-MAG3 scintigraphy showed that laparoscopic removal of calculi did not affect renal function, but did improve ureteral occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is a safe and effective treatment option for reducing ureteral obstruction in select patients with large proximal ureteric stones.

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Open versus Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy: Experience of a Single Center from Northern India

AIM

Prospective randomized study on transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU) versus open ureterolithotomy (OU) for treatment of large impacted ureteric stones (≥ 1.5 cm) and assessment of overall results.

MATERIAL & METHODS

In a prospective study between 2010 to 2012, 30 patients underwent TPLU and 30 OU based on 1:1 randomization. The operation was indicated primarily in 44 cases or after failed shock-wave lithotripsy/ureteroscopy in 16 cases. Two groups were compared for operative time, success rate, visual pain score, analgesic requirement, hospital stay, and postoperative complications. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS® version 16.0 using Fisher exact or Mann-Whitney U tests with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The difference in visual pain score (6.2 in TPLU group vs 3.1 in OU group on day 1; 4.8 vs. 2.4 on day 2) and tramadol requirements (184.32 mg in TPLU group vs. 150.87 mg in OU group on day 1; 97.34 mg vs. 65.56 mg on day 2) were statistically significant and more in OU. Hospital stay and convalescence were significantly lower in the TPLU. However, stone removal in one attempt was similar in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

Although successful stone removal rates are equal in both groups, TPLU is associated significantly with less postoperative pain, less analgesic requirement, shorter hospital stay and short convalescence in comparison to OU.