An initial experience with lighted ureteral catheters during laparoscopic colectomy

Prophylactic ureteral stent in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

Accidental ureteric injury during colorectal surgery is a rare but dreadful event. It is associated with a higher risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) and acute kidney injury (AKI). Prophylactic placement of double J stents could improve ureteral identification and decrease the chance of accidental ureteral injury.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science for studies published until March 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, with p-values inferior to 0.10 and I2 > 25% considered significant. Statistical analysis was conducted in RStudio version 4.4.1.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies were included, comprising 71,784 patients. Among them, 11,723 (16.4%) were submitted to a prophylactic ureteral stent while 59,961 (83.6%) were not. There was no significant difference in ureteral injury between the groups (0.66% vs 0.8%; OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.43-4.87; p = 0.552; I2 = 56%). Prophylactic stent placement was associated with an increase in AKI (1.7% vs. 0.56%; OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.24-1.91; p < 0.001; I2 = 44%), operative time (MD 24.8 min; 95% CI 4.9-44.8; p = 0.01; I2 = 91%), and a decrease in mortality (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.05-0.23; p < 0.001; I2 = 42%). No differences were observed in UTI, hematuria, length of hospital stays, and reoperation.

CONCLUSION

In colorectal surgery, prophylactic ureteral stents were associated with increased AKI and operative time. No significant difference was observed in ureteral injury, UTI, hematuria, length of hospital stays, and reoperation.

Deep Learning-Based Real-Time Ureter Identification in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic ureteral injury is a serious complication of abdominopelvic surgery. Identifying the ureters intraoperatively is essential to avoid iatrogenic ureteral injury. We developed a model that may minimize this complication.

IMPACT OF INNOVATION

We applied a deep learning-based semantic segmentation algorithm to the ureter recognition task and developed a deep learning model called UreterNet. This study aimed to verify whether the ureters could be identified in videos of laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

TECHNOLOGY, MATERIALS, AND METHODS

Semantic segmentation of the ureter area was performed using a convolutional neural network-based approach. Feature Pyramid Networks were used as the convolutional neural network architecture for semantic segmentation. Precision, recall, and the Dice coefficient were used as the evaluation metrics in this study.

PRELIMINARY RESULTS

We created 14,069 annotated images from 304 videos, with 9537, 2266, and 2266 images in the training, validation, and test data sets, respectively. Concerning ureter recognition performance, the precision, recall, and Dice coefficient for the test data were 0.712, 0.722, and 0.716, respectively. Regarding the real-time performance on recorded videos, it took 71 milliseconds for UreterNet to infer all pixels corresponding to the ureter from a single still image and 143 milliseconds to output and display the inferred results as a segmentation mask on the laparoscopic monitor.

CONCLUSIONS

UreterNet is a noninvasive method for identifying the ureter in videos of laparoscopic colorectal surgery and can potentially improve surgical safety.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Although this deep learning model could lead to the development of an image-navigated surgical system, it is necessary to verify whether UreterNet reduces the occurrence of iatrogenic ureteral injury.

Preventing iatrogenic ureteral injury in colorectal surgery: a comprehensive and systematic review of the last 2 decades of literature and future perspectives

Iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI) during colorectal surgery is a rare complication but related to a serious burden of morbidity. This comprehensive and systematic review aims to provide a critical overview of the most recent literature about IUI prevention techniques in colorectal surgery. We performed a comprehensive and systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2022 and assessed the use of techniques for ureteral injury prevention and intraoperative localization. 26 publications were included, divided into stent-based (prophylactic/lighted ureteral stent and near-infrared fluorescent ureteral catheter [PUS/LUS/NIRFUC]) and fluorescent dye (FD) groups. Costs, the percentage and number of IUIs detected, reported limitations, complication rates and other outcome points were compared. The IUI incidence rate ranged from 0 to 1.9% (mean 0.5%) and 0 to 1.2% (mean 0.3%) in the PUS/LUS/NIRFUC and FD groups, respectively. The acute kidney injury (AKI) and urinary tact infection (UTI) incidence rate ranged from 0.4 to 32.6% and 0 to 17.3%, respectively, in the PUS/LUS/NIRFUC group and 0-15% and 0-6.3%, respectively, in the FD group. Many other complications were also compared and descriptively analyzed (length-of-stay, mortality, etc.). These techniques appear to be feasible and safe in select patients with a high risk of IUI, but the delineation of reliable guidelines for preventing IUI will require more randomized controlled trials.

2023 WSES guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of iatrogenic urinary tract injuries (IUTIs) during emergency digestive surgery

Iatrogenic urinary tract injury (IUTI) is a severe complication of emergency digestive surgery. It can lead to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and have a long-term impact on the quality of life. The reported incidence of IUTIs varies greatly among the studies, ranging from 0.3 to 1.5%. Given the high volume of emergency digestive surgery performed worldwide, there is a need for well-defined and effective strategies to prevent and manage IUTIs. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs in the emergency setting. The present guidelines, promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), were developed following a systematic review of the literature and an international expert panel discussion. The primary aim of these WSES guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and surgeons in the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery. The following key aspects were considered: (1) effectiveness of preventive interventions for IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery; (2) intra-operative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies; (3) postoperative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies and timing; and (4) effectiveness of antibiotic therapy (including type and duration) in case of IUTIs.

Trends and benefits of prophylactic ureter catheters in the era of minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

The recent spike in ureter injury (UI) amidst the rise of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has focused attention on the propriety of prophylactic ureter catheters (PUCs) for abdominopelvic operations.

METHODS

A retrospective review of PUCs for rectal cancer resection following neoadjuvant therapy, combined with a comprehensive literature review.

RESULTS

There were zero UI in the current study. Literature review revealed a nationwide spike in PUCs in the last 30 years, dependent on operation: 1) colorectal resection-increased from 1.1% to 4.4%, 2) sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis-increased from 6.7% to 16.3%. This 2-4 fold increase parallels the rise of MIS: 15 of the 20 latest studies (75%) either combined open operations and MIS (4 studies) or focused solely on MIS (11 studies). Medial-to-lateral dissection identified as a UI risk factor. Only 20-30% of UI identified intraoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative UI is missed in 70-80% of cases. The prevention, identification, ease of ureter repair, and net decrease in operative time support the use of PUCs. Medial-to-lateral dissection is identified as a potential contributing factor to UI.

Real-Time Intraoperative Ureteral Identification in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

Background: Although colorectal surgery (CRS) has currently almost entirely standardized surgical procedures, it can still show pitfalls such as the intraoperative ureteral injury. Intraoperative ureteral identification (IUI) could reduce the ureteral injuries rate but evidence is still lacking. We aimed to analyze the utility and the effectiveness of real-time IUI in minimally invasive CRS. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed examining available data on randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating the utility of intraureteral fluorescence dye (IFD) and lighted ureteral stent (LUS) for intraoperative identification of ureters in CRS, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) standards. Primary endpoint was ureteral injuries rate. Secondary endpoints included acute kidney injury, hematuria, urinary tract infections (UTI), and fluorescence assessment. Results: After literature search, 158 studies have been recorded, 36 studies underwent full-text reviews and 12 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, out of a total of 822 patients who successfully received IUI, 3 (0.33%) patients experienced ureteral injury. Hematuria was reported in 689 (97.6%) of patients following LUS-guided surgery and in 1 (2%) patient following IFD-guided surgery, although transient in all cases. UTI was reported in 15 (3.3%) LUS-guided resections and in 1 (2%) IFD-guided resections. Acute kidney injury occurred in 23 (2.5%) LUS-guided surgery and 1 (1%) IFD-guided surgery. Conclusions: Real-time ureteral identification techniques could represent a valid solution in complex minimally invasive CRS, safely, with no time consuming and always reproducible by surgeons. Prospective studies will be needed to confirm these findings.

Iatrogenic Ureteral Injury and Prophylactic Stent Use in Veterans Undergoing Colorectal Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI) is an uncommon complication in colorectal surgery. Prophylactic ureteral stenting (PUS) gained acceptance to aid in intraoperative identification of the ureter. Despite its use, the benefit of pus to avoid IUI remains debatable. We sought to analyze the rates of IUI after colorectal surgery in veterans and to compare the outcomes after PUS using a large matched cohort.

METHODS

The veterans affairs surgical quality improvement program database was queried for patients who underwent colorectal surgery from 2008-2015. To analyze the outcomes of PUS, we created two matched groups using propensity-score matching accounting for demographical and clinical cofactors to assess variable outcomes. Cross-tabulation was used to calculate rates of IUI and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors associated with IUI.

RESULTS

27,448 patients were identified and 458 underwent PUS placement (1.6%). The majority of procedures were performed electively and with an open approach. Mean age was 65 y, 96.3% were male, and colorectal cancer was the most common indication. 45 patients (0.2%) were diagnosed with IUI. IUI incidence was higher in female patients, after left-sided colorectal resection, and in those undergoing open procedures. After matching, PUS use was associated with longer length of stay and operative time and increased creatinine levels from baseline.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that the use of PUS is independently associated with increased operative time and change in creatinine levels. Although no IUI occurred in the PUS group, this finding was not statistically significant. The risk and/or benefit ratio of PUS should be considered for each individual case, with its selective use based on the presence of risk factors for IUI, such as female patients and left-sided resections.

Does prophylactic ureteric stenting at the time of colorectal surgery reduce the risk of ureteric injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Cystoscopic placement of ureteric stents during colorectal surgery (CRS) may aid in the intraoperative identification of the ureters and thus prevent ureteric injury, but may also be associated with prolonged operating time, increased cost and adverse events. No formal recommendations exist regarding the use of ureteric stents prior to CRS. Our aim was to determine the effect of prophylactic ureteric stent insertion on the risk of ureteric injury among adult patients undergoing CRS.

METHOD

A systematic search using the Ovid platform was completed. The primary outcome was risk of ureteric injury. Secondary outcomes included the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI), urinary tract infection (UTI), sepsis, length of stay (LOS) and mortality. The Paule-Mandel pooling and a random effects model was used to produce odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. Standardized mean differences (MD) were reported for continuous variables. Analyses were completed using R3.5.

RESULTS

Nine retrospective cohort studies evaluating 98 507 patients were included. The incidence of ureteric injury was 0.6%. Overall, 5.1% of patients underwent ureteric stenting. There was no change in the odds of ureteric injury among stented patients compared with controls (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.39-4.29, I²  = 25%). Operating time was significantly longer (MD 49.3 min, 95% CI 35.3-63.4, I²  = 96%) in the intervention group. There was no difference in rates of AKI, UTI, sepsis, LOS or mortality between groups.

CONCLUSION

Given the retrospective nature of the identified studies, the benefit of prophylactic ureteric stenting remains uncertain. Prophylactic ureteric stenting was not associated with increased patient morbidity but did significantly increase operating time.

Prophylactic Ureteral Localization Stent with Guidewire Assistance Decreases Urologic-Induced Complication Rates: Quality Improvement Initiative and Review of Literature

Background: We previously reported a 2% Clavien IIIb urologic-induced complication rate associated with blind (no guidewire, no fluoroscopy) prophylactic ureteral localization stent (PULSe) placement. As part of a quality improvement initiative, mandatory guidewire placement before PULSe was performed and urologic-induced Clavien IIIb or greater complication rates were evaluated. A systematic review was performed to elicit the overall urologic-induced complication rate in the literature. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent guidewire-assisted PULSe placement before colorectal surgery was performed. The contemporary cohort was compared with those in the prior cohort using age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, preoperative creatinine, postoperative creatinine, pre-/postoperative creatinine difference, and Clavien IIIb urologic-induced complication rates. A review of literature from 1982 to 2019 was performed using 14 unique search terms. Of 38 studies reviewed, 18 met predetermined inclusion criteria. Results: One hundred thirty-two patients underwent bilateral PULSe placement with mandatory guidewire utilization. Mean age and BMI were 55.78 (18-89) and 27.02, respectively, with zero Clavien IIIb complications, compared with a rate of 2% (P < .001) in our prior study. Our contemporary cohort yielded a more favorable postoperative creatinine (P < .022) and pre-/postoperative creatinine difference (P < .003). A review of literature identified a mean Clavien IIIb complication rate of 0.38%. Conclusions: Mandatory guidewire utilization before PULSe placement reduced the Clavien IIIb complication rate to zero, compared with a rate of 2% from our prior cohort. Guidewire utilization can decrease Clavien IIIb urologic-induced complication rates. A review of the literature shows a lack of uniformity concerning the technique of PULSe placement.

The sentinel stent? A systematic review of the role of prophylactic ureteric stenting prior to colorectal resections

PURPOSE

'Prophylactic' ureteric stents potentially reduce rates, and facilitate intraoperative recognition, of iatrogenic ureteric injury (IUI) during colorectal resections. A lack of consensus surrounds the risk-benefit equation of this practice, and we aimed to assess the evidence base.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched using terms 'ureteric/ureteral/JJ/Double J stent' or 'ureteric/ureteral catheter' and 'colorectal/prophylactic/resection/diverticular disease/diverticulitis/iatrogenic injury'. Primary outcomes were rates of ureteric injuries and their intraoperative identification. Secondary outcomes included stent complication rates.

RESULTS

We identified 987 publications; 22 papers met the inclusion criteria. No randomised controlled trials were found. The total number of patients pooled for evaluation was 869,603 (102,370 with ureteric stents/catheters, 767,233 controls). The most frequent indications for prophylactic stents were diverticular disease (45.38%), neoplasia (33.45%) and inflammatory bowel disease (9.37%). Pooled results saw IUI in 1521/102,370 (1.49%) with, and in 1333/767,233 (0.17%) without, prophylactic ureteric stents. Intraoperative recognition of IUIs occurred in 10/16 injuries (62.5%) with prophylactic stents, versus 9/17 (52.94%) without stents (p = 0.579). The most serious complications of prophylactic stent use were ureteric injury (2/1716, 0.12%) and transient ureteric obstruction following stent removal (13/666, 1.95%).

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of prophylactic ureteric stents has a low complication rate. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that stents decrease ureteric injury or increase intraoperative detection of IUIs. Apparently higher rates of IUI in stented patients likely reflect use in higher risk resections. A prospective registry with harmonised data collection points and stratification of intraoperative risk is needed.

Lighted ureteral stents in laparoscopic colorectal surgery; a five-year experience

BACKGROUND

Ureteral injuries during colorectal surgery are a rare event, ranging in the literature from 0.28-7.6%. Debate surrounds the use of prophylactic lighted ureteral stents to help protect the ureter during laparoscopic surgery. It has been suggested that they help to identify injuries but do not prevent them. The authors look to challenge this.

METHODS

Over 66 months, every laparoscopic or colectomy involving ureteral stents was recorded. Researchers documented any injury to the ureter intraoperatively. The chart was also reviewed for the complications of urinary tract infection (UTI) and urinary retention post-operatively.

RESULTS

During the 66 months, 402 laparoscopic colon resections were done. There were no ureteral injuries. The lighted ureteral stent was identified during every case in the effort to prevent injury during dissection and resection. No catheter associated UTIs were identified, while 14 (3.5%) suffered from post-operative urinary retention.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors of this study present a large series of colon resections with no intraoperative ureteral injuries. In addition, these catheters were not associated with any UTIs and a rate of urinary retention similar to that of the at large data. This series provides compelling data to use lighted ureteral stents during laparoscopic colon surgery.

Role of Minimally Invasive Surgery in the Reoperative Abdomen or Pelvis

Laparoscopy has become widely accepted as the preferred surgical approach in the management of benign and malignant colorectal diseases. Once considered a relative contraindication in patients with prior abdominal surgery (PAS), as surgeons have continued to gain expertise in advanced laparoscopy, minimally invasive approaches have been increasingly incorporated in the reoperative abdomen and pelvis. Although earlier studies have described conversion rates, most contemporary series evaluating the impact of PAS in laparoscopic colorectal resection have reported equivalent conversion and morbidity rates between reoperative and non-reoperative cases, and series evaluating the impact of laparoscopy in reoperative cases have demonstrated improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopy. The data overall highlight the importance of case selection, careful preoperative preparation and planning, and the critical role of surgeons' expertise in advanced laparoscopic techniques. Challenges to the widespread adoption of minimally invasive techniques in reoperative colorectal cases include the longer learning curve and longer operative time. However, with the steady increase in adoption of minimally invasive techniques worldwide, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is likely to continue to be applied in the management of increasingly complex reoperative colorectal cases in an effort to improve patient outcomes. In the hands of experienced MIS surgeons and in carefully selected cases, laparoscopy is both safe and efficacious for reoperative procedures in the abdomen and pelvis, with measurable short-term benefits.

Genitourinary Considerations in Reoperative and Complex Colorectal Surgery

Genitourinary structures are at risk of injury during colorectal surgery. The incidence of injury is low; however, the risk is higher in cases involving severe inflammatory or infectious processes, locally advanced or recurrent cancer, previous radiation, and reoperation. Consideration of the anatomical relationship between the genitourinary system, and the colon and rectum is crucial to avoid injuries. Intraoperative diagnostic techniques such as intravenous pyelogram (IVP), fluoroscopic cystogram, or retrograde urethrogram can aid in identifying suspected injuries. Early recognition and repair of injuries decrease the morbidity of an injury. Repair of injuries depends on the location and extent of the injury. Simple injuries may be repaired primarily, while complex injuries may require more advanced repairs such as a flap reconstruction.

Adoption of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: It Was Quite a Journey

The adoption of laparoscopic colorectal surgery has been a slow but steady progress. The first adopters rapidly expanded the application of the technology to all colorectal pathology. Issues related to extraction and port site recurrence of cancer delayed widespread adoption until incontrovertible data from well-powered prospective randomized studies confirmed equipoise with open surgery. Since that time, the data has consistently demonstrated patient-care benefits related to reductions in both short- and long-term complications historically associated with open colectomy. The potential for further improvement related to single-port access, robotic assistance, and natural orifice access for both the surgery and/or extraction will await the test of time. However, it is clear now that laparoscopic colorectal surgery is the new standard of care and a key enabler of enhanced recovery programs.

The prophylactic use of a ureteral stent in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The insertion of prophylactic ureteral stents in traditional colorectal surgery has been debated for a long time. The aim of this study is to investigate the results of ureteric stent insertion in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery in terms of complications and costs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From June 2009 to June 2011 one or two prophylactic ureteral stents were placed in all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic resection of their colon or rectum.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients took part in this study, 61% had a benign disease and 39% malignant. The mean time for ureteral stent insertion was 16 min if one-sided and 21 min if bilateral. Incidental findings were found in the bladder in four (4.5%) patients. In all, 13 (26%) male patients had a benign prostatic adenoma, and 3 (6%) male patients had a significant stenosis of the urethral meatus and required bouginage. Complications due to ureteral stent insertion were transient hematuria in 11 (12.3%) cases, postoperative urinary tract infections in 2 (2.2%) cases, and hydronephrosis in 2 (2.2%) cases. One patient suffered an accidental damage of the right ureter despite the presence of a stent; this was recognized intraoperatively. The total cost for a one-sided ureteral stent insertion is calculated at around €360, and for a bilateral ureteral stent insertion, it is around €410.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic use of a ureteral stent in laparoscopic colorectal surgery leads to minor complications and may be cost-effective.

Diverticular disease and the obese patient

Diverticular disease is common in the Western world and is a considerable source of morbidity. Many have proposed an association between diverticular disease, its complications, and obesity. We examine this question through a review of the available literature. While it is likely that an association between diverticular disease and obesity exists, there is no evidence suggesting that obese patients should be managed any differently from the non-obese.

Role of prophylactic ureteric stents in colorectal surgery

Ureteric injury is a feared complication in colorectal surgery, with a reported incidence of 0.2%-7.6%. Prophylactic ureteric catheter placement has the advantage of facilitating intraoperative ureter identification and assisting in immediate injury recognition and repair. However, its use has been controversial because of fear of ureteric damage during catheter insertion and postoperative urinary complications such as obstructive oliguria and urinary tract infection. Although the exact indications for prophylactic catheter placement are not clearly defined, it is generally used for reoperative cases, large tumors, previous radiation therapy, diverticulitis, fistulas, Crohn's disease and obesity. Herein, we review the incidence and risk factors for ureteric injury, the role of prophylactic ureteric stents and the complications and costs associated with its use in both open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Prophylactic ureteric catheters in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of ureteric catheter placement in laparoscopic colorectal surgery and to assess the morbidity related to this procedure.

METHODS

Between 1994 and 2001, 313 elective laparoscopic colorectal surgeries were performed. Patients with and without ureteric catheters were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Catheter placement was attempted in 149 patients (catheter group) and was not attempted in 164 (controls). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of patients with prior colorectal resection (p=0.286) or other abdominal surgery (p=0.074). Crohn's disease and diverticulitis were more common in the catheter group than among controls (p<0.001). Concomitant intra-abdominal fistula or abscess was present in 29 patients (19.5%) in the catheter group vs. 14 (8.5%) in the control group (p=0.005). The duration of surgery was longer in the catheter group (p=0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion, duration of bladder catheter placement, or length of hospital stay. Urinary tract infection occurred in 3 patients (2.0%) in the catheter group and 7 (4.3%) in the control group (p=0.257) and urinary retention occurred in 3 patients (2.0%) and 11 patients (6.7%), respectively (p=0.045). No intraoperative ureteric injuries occurred in either group.

CONCLUSION

Ureteric catheter placement was successful in most cases and was not associated with intraoperative injuries. The increased length of surgery in patients with ureteric catheter placement may attest to the increased severity of pathology in these patients.

Laparoscopic elective treatment of diverticular disease. A comparison between laparoscopic-assisted and resection-facilitated techniques

BACKGROUND

Because of the presence of significant inflammatory reaction, elective surgical laparoscopic-assisted treatment of complicated diverticular disease can be difficult, leading to a high conversion and complication rate. Laparoscopic alternatives to this assisted approach consist of the hand-assisted method and the more conventional facilitated laparoscopic sigmoid resection. Facilitated laparoscopic sigmoid resection implies laparoscopic mobilization of the sigmoid as much as possible and splenic flexure when called for. Through a Pfannenstiel incision, the difficult steps of the operation-such as the dissection of the inflammatory process and taking down the fistula, but also resection and manual anastomosis-can be performed. In this study, we compare the operating time, conversion rate, complications, and costs of both assisted and resection-facilitated techniques.

METHODS

We compared two consecutive series of 35 patients with diverticular disease who underwent a sigmoid resection by laparoscopy. Both groups were comparable in terms of age, gender, and kind of complicated diverticular disease.

RESULTS

The operating time, conversion rate, and costs were all less in the laparoscopic-facilitated group. The fact that there were no conversions in this group is the most important finding of this study. Not only was it possible to convert from the assisted laparoscopic approach to laparotomy (five patients of 35), it was also possible to convert from the assisted to the facilitated form (seven of 35 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic-facilitated sigmoid resection is a feasible intervention for all forms of complicated diverticular disease and yields marked reductions in operating time, conversion rate, and operative and general costs.

Laparoscopic hysterectomy

The terminology of laparoscopically-assisted hysterectomies needs to be simplified and clarified. Laparoscopic hysterectomy should be used as a general term, whereas operative laparoscopy before hysterectomy, laparovaginal, laparoscopic total and subtotal hysterectomy should be used to describe the types of laparoscopic hysterectomy. The complication rates from laparoscopic hysterectomy, abdominal hysterectomy and vaginal hysterectomy are similar. The lower febrile morbidity after laparoscopic hysterectomy may be due to improved pelvic visualization compared to vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy. Controlled trials show that laparoscopic hysterectomy has advantages over abdominal hysterectomy which include reduced pain, reduced hospitalization time and earlier return to work. Most abdominal hysterectomies can be replaced by laparoscopic or vaginal hysterectomies. Whether this happens will depend upon adequate training facilities.

Routine use of ureteric catheters at laparoscopic hysterectomy may cause unnecessary complications

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To test the use of ureteric catheters in preventing ureteric trauma during laparoscopic hysterectomy.

DESIGN

Prospective study of 492 consecutive women.

SETTING

Pelosi Women's Medical Center, New Jersey, and Cliveden Hill Private Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

PATIENTS

Four hundred ninety-two consecutive women.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic hysterectomy was performed in all women. Because of the reported increased risk of ureteric trauma during laparoscopic hysterectomy, we passed ureteric catheters in 92 such procedures and ceased the practice with the last 400 when further reports suggested lack of increased risk.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Oliguria and anuria occurred in 7 of 92 patients having ureteric catheterization. No ureteric trauma occurred in 400 patients without ureteric catheterization. The injury rate in this series was significantly lower than in three other series of abdominal hysterectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

As long as surgical techniques incorporate various procedures to avoid ureteric injury, routine ureteric catheterization during laparoscopic hysterectomy is not indicated and may result in unnecessary complications.