Retrograde, Antegrade, and Laparoscopic Approaches for the Management of Large, Proximal Ureteral Stones:  A Randomized Clinical Trial

Basiri, Abbas; Simforoosh, Nasser; Ziaee, Seyed Amir Mohsen; Shayaninasab, Hamid; Moghaddam, Seyed Mohamad Mehdi Hosseini; Zare, Samad

doi:10.1089/end.2008.0095

Cited by 87 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with the findings of Basir et al 24 and El-Moula et al 10 , who reported lengths of stay of 5.8 and 6.4 days, respectively, it can be seen that this series had a better hospitalization time. Also compared to Kijvikai Patcharatrakul and 15 and Bove et al 26 , the time of drain removal of 2.8 and three days was similar to the one found here.…”

Section: Results Results Results Resultscontrasting

confidence: 52%

“…Other authors have reported that large calculus (> 15 mm) and especially those who are impacted for long periods are prime candidates for this technique, due to the high failure rate of other methods 23,24,25 . The operative time was 133 minutes in the global average, not statistically different between groups (a = 130 min, 2 = 136 min).…”

Section: Results Results Results Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

O emprego do cateter duplo J diminui as complicações na ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica

Cavalli

Filho

Slongo

et al. 2012

Rev. Col. Bras. Cir.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJETIVO: Avaliar os resultados da ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica no tratamento do cálculo ureteral e a necessidade do cateter duplo J para reduzir complicações relacionadas ao procedimento. MÉTODOS: Estudo retrospectivo comparativo de 47 pacientes operados pela técnica de ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica, dos quais 31 foram selecionados e divididos em dois grupos: Grupo 1, cujos pacientes não receberam cateter duplo J, e Grupo 2, que foram submetidos ao implante de cateter duplo J transoperatório. Foram coletados dados de urografia excretora pré e pós-operatória, tempo cirúrgico, analgesia pós-operatória, tempo de internação e retirada do dreno. RESULTADOS: Os grupos foram semelhantes quando comparados na idade e sexo, grau de dilatação do trato urinário, posição e tamanho médio do cálculo (Grupo 1= 15,5 ± 6,6mm; Grupo 2= 16,3 ± 6,1mm). O tempo operatório também não teve diferença significativa (Grupo 1= 130 ± 40,3min; Grupo 2= 136,3 ± 49,3min). O Grupo 1 apresentou seis pacientes (37,5 %) com complicações precoces (quatro casos de fístula urinária) e tardias (um caso de estenose de ureter, um caso de exclusão funcional do rim operado), enquanto o Grupo 2 não teve complicações, sendo esta diferença estatisticamente significativa (p=0,011). CONCLUSÃO: O emprego do cateter duplo J foi associado a um número significativamente menor de complicações na ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica. Tempo cirúrgico, analgesia pós-operatória e tempo de internação foram semelhantes entre os grupos com e sem cateter.

show abstract

Section: Results Results Results Resultscontrasting

confidence: 52%

Section: Results Results Results Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

O emprego do cateter duplo J diminui as complicações na ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica

Cavalli

Filho

Slongo

et al. 2012

Rev. Col. Bras. Cir.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, in some situations such as large, hard, impacted stone or in case of multiple stones, ureterolithotomy either by open surgery or laparoscopy is indicated to completely clear the stone in a single surgical session. [1,2] Laparoscopy is more preferable than open surgery because it enables lower postoperative morbidity and pain, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, with better cosmoses. [3] Recently, with the adoption of laparoscopy by most urologists, nearly all urological operations have been reported to be performed laparoscopically, including ureterolithotomy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Khalil¹,

Omar²,

Abdel-baky³

et al. 2015

Turkish Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…1 It is also preferable to open surgical ureterolithotomy because of its reduced invasiveness, improved cosmesis, and short hospital stay. 2,3 In recent years, laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery has been developed. It improves cosmesis in the skin by placing all instruments through a 2 to 3 cm incision [4][5][6] and has been demonstrated to be feasible and effective in treating ureteral calculi in selected patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retroperitoneal Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Ureterolithotomy: A Comparison with Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery

Wen

Liu

Huang

et al. 2012

Journal of Endourology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose: Laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) surgery through the retroperitoneal approach has been seldom reported. We aimed to compare the feasibility and outcomes of LESS and conventional laparoscopic surgery via the retroperitoneal approach in the management of large, impacted ureteral stones. Patients and Methods: From June 2010 to May 2011, LESS ureterolithotomy through the retroperitoneal approach was performed in 10 patients (the LESS group). Another 15 patients who underwent conventional retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (the conventional laparoscopic group) by the same surgeon were involved and compared. The operative time, complications, and surgical outcomes were evaluated. Results: All the operations were completed successfully, without conversion to conventional laparoscopic or open surgeries. The operative time of the LESS group and of the conventional laparoscopic group were 132.7 -16.3 and 128.1 -20.1 minutes, respectively (P = 0.782). The estimated blood loss were 30.7 -5.9 vs 28.0 -4.5 mL (P = 0.620). Duration of analgesia postoperatively was 2.0 -0.8 vs 3.5 -0.5 days (P = 0.005). All targeted stones were successfully extracted without major complications. Postoperative urine leakage was noted in one patient in each group. Cosmetic results were superior in the LESS group according to both the study nurse's and the patients' assessments (8.5 vs 5.3; P = 0.012, and 8.3 vs 5.6; P = 0.025, respectively). All patients showed no obstructions or stricture formations on postoperative follow-up. Conclusions: In experienced hands, LESS for ureterolithotomy through the retroperitoneal approach is feasible and can acquire outcomes equal to those of conventional multiport laparoscopic surgery. Prospective long-term follow-up studies with a larger number of patients are needed to further evaluate its benefits.

show abstract

Retrograde, Antegrade, and Laparoscopic Approaches for the Management of Large, Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Cited by 87 publications

References 13 publications

O emprego do cateter duplo J diminui as complicações na ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica

O emprego do cateter duplo J diminui as complicações na ureterolitotomia retroperitoneoscópica

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

Retroperitoneal Laparoendoscopic Single-Site Ureterolithotomy: A Comparison with Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About