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":0.8000,"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.
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。