Estudio prospectivo que compara laparoscopia y cirugía abierta para el tratamiento de cálculos ureterales impactados

Almeida, Gilberto Laurino; Heldwein, Flávio Lobo; Graziotin, Tulio M.; Schmitt, C.S.; Telöken, Cláudio

doi:10.4321/s0210-48062009001000013

Cited by 3 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After reviewing the titles and abstracts of 276 searched articles, 18 were selected and their abstracts or complete texts carefully reviewed. A total of 11 articles [14,15,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1), and Table 1 lists their basic information.…”

Section: Study Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Huang¹,

Yang²,

Shao³

et al. 2022

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transperitoneal and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TLU and RLU). Materials and Methods: 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). Results: 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; p < 0.01), hospital stay (SMD = 0.26; 95% CI 0.02–0.49; p = 0.031), and the complication of paralytic ileus (risk difference = 0.11; 95% CI 0.05–0.17; p < 0.01) are significant difference between TLU and RLU, and TLU are higher or longer. Conclusions: 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.

show abstract

Section: Study Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Huang¹,

Yang²,

Shao³

et al. 2022

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy was defined as minimally invasive surgery using laparoscopic equipment to locate and remove stones trapped in the ureter. Laparoscopic included the transperitoneal [2] and retroperitoneal approaches [2,3]. Open proximal ureterolithotomy is defined as surgery on ureteral stones using an open surgical technique by making an incision in the skin of the lumbar area according to the position of the stone [3].…”

Section: Study Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Laparoscopic included the transperitoneal [2] and retroperitoneal approaches [2,3]. Open proximal ureterolithotomy is defined as surgery on ureteral stones using an open surgical technique by making an incision in the skin of the lumbar area according to the position of the stone [3].…”

Section: Study Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The invention of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endourological procedures, including percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS), have revolutionized the Original Article treatment landscape, limiting the indications for open surgical interventions and laparoscopic approaches [1,2]. However, the choice of treatment depends on various factors, such as stone parameters, patient characteristics, and the skill of the surgeon [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Impacted stones are defined as persistent stones located in the same anatomical position for at least two months, accompanied by radiographic evidence of contrast media impeded from passing distal to the stone [3]. Additional criteria for impacted stones include a size greater than 10 mm or the inability of a retrograde guide-wire to pass proximal to the stone [3,7]. Literature reports indicate that up to 24% of impacted stones may lead to ureteral stenosis [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of efficacy and safety of open and laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy for ureteral stone management: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Maliki,

Fitriani,

Soebadi

et al. 2024

Narra J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite advances in non-invasive and minimally invasive techniques, some proximal ureteral stones with impaction require open or laparoscopic surgery. No systematic reviews or meta-analyses have compared the efficacy and safety of open proximal ureterolithotomy and laparoscopic approaches. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between open and laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy for ureteral stone management. Following the PRISMA guidelines, systematic searches were conducted in five databases (PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and ProQuest) to identify articles comparing those two surgical approaches. Operative time, blood loss, pain score, hospital stay, recovery time, and complications were collected and compared. Heterogeneity-based meta-analysis with random-effects or fixed-effects models were conducted. Two randomized controlled trials and four observational cohort studies with 386 participants met the criteria. Open surgery had significantly less time than laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (mean difference (MD): 26.63 minutes, 95%CI: 14.32, 38.94; p<0.0001). Intraoperative blood loss (MD: -1.27 ml; 95%CI: -6.64, 4.09; p=0.64) and overall complications (OR: 0.68; 95%CI: 0.41, 1.15; p=0.16) were not significantly different between two approaches. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy reduced visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores (MD: -2.53; 95%CI: -3.47, -2.03; p<0.00001), hospital stays (MD: -2.40 days; 95%CI: -3.42 to -1.38 days; p=0.03), and recovery time (MD: -9.67 days; 95%CI: -10.81 to -8.53 days; p<0.00001). In conclusion, open proximal ureterolithotomy had less time, but laparoscopic surgery reduced postoperative pain, hospital stay, and recovery time. Both methods had comparable intraoperative bleeding and complications.

show abstract

Laparoscopic/Robotic Stone Surgery

Ahmed

Jarrett

2012

Clinical Management of Urolithiasis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estudio prospectivo que compara laparoscopia y cirugía abierta para el tratamiento de cálculos ureterales impactados

Cited by 3 publications

References 17 publications

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

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

Comparison of efficacy and safety of open and laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy for ureteral stone management: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic/Robotic Stone Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About