0
0
0
0
Smart Citations
0
0
0
0
Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

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

Authors

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.

Skolarikos A, Papatsoris AG, Albanis S, Assimos D. Laparoscopic urinary stone surgery: an updated evidence-based review. Urol Res. 2010; 38:337-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0275-4
El-Moula MG, Abdallah A, El-Anany F, et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: our experience with 74 cases. Int J Urol. 2008;15:593-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2008.02065.x
Leonardo C, Simone G, Rocco P,, et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: minimally invasive second line treatment. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011; 43:651-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-010-9872-y
Al-Sayyad A. Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy for large ureteric stones. Urol Ann. 2012; 4:34-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.91619
Ahmed F, Askarpour MR, Eslahi A, et al. The role of ultrasonography in detecting urinary tract calculi compared to CT scan. Res Rep Urol. 2018; 10:199-203.
Kartal I, Baylan B, Çakıcı M, et al. Comparison of semirigid ureteroscopy, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy for initial treatment of 11-20 mm proximal ureteral stones. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2020; 92:39-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2020.1.39
Hong Y, Ye H, Yang B, et al. Ultrasound-Guided Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy is Effective in the Management of Pediatric Upper Ureteral and Renal Stones. J Invest Surg. 2020:1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2020.1764154
Ahmed F, Askarpour M-R, Eslahi A, et al. The role of ultrasonog raphy in detecting urinary tract calculi compared to CT scan. Res Rep Urol. 2018; 10:199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S178902
Wani MM, Durrani AM. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: Experience of 60 cases from a developing world hospital. J Minim Access Surg. 2018; 15:103-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.JMAS_203_17
Yasui T, Okada A, Hamamoto S, et al. Efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of large proximal ureteric stones and its impact on renal function. Springerplus 2013; 2:600. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-600
El-Nahas AR, El-Tabey NA, Eraky I, et al. Semirigid ureteroscopy for ureteral stones: a multivariate analysis of unfavorable results. J Urol. 2009; 181:1158-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.167
Chen H, Chen G, Chen H, et al. Comparison of the safety and efficacy between transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approach of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of large (>10mm) and proximal ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol J. 2020; 18:11-18.
El-Feel A, Abouel-Fettouh H, Abdel-Hakim AM. Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy. J Endourol. 2007; 21:50-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.0141
Yang H, Yu X, Peng E, et al. Urgent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for proximal ureter stones accompanied with obstructive pyelonephritis: Is it safe and effective without preoperative drainage? Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96:e8657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008657
Nasseh H, Pourreza F, Kazemnejad Leyli E, et al. Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy: a single-center experience. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013; 23:495-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2012.0187
Hsiao HL, Huang SP, Wu WJ, et al. Impact of hydronephrosis on treatment outcome of solitary proximal ureteral stone after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2008;24:507-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70009-9
Wani R, Para M. Transperitoneal laparoscopic management of ureteric stones: a prospective study. World journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2020, 8:1 (Monday, November 16, 2020).
Farooq Qadri SJ, Khan N, Khan M. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy--a single centre 10 year experience. Int J Surg. 2011; 9:160-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.10.012
Radfar MH, Valipour R, Narouie B, et al. Role of the gonadal vessels on the stone lodgment in the proximal ureter: Direct observation during laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2018; 90:163-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2018.3.163
Kadyan B, Sabale V, Mane D, et al. Large proximal ureteral stones: Ideal treatment modality? Urol Ann. 2016; 8:189-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-7796.157963
Simforoosh N, Basiri A, Danesh AK, et al. Laparoscopic management of ureteral calculi: a report of 123 cases. Urol J. 2007;4:138-41.
You JH, Kim YG, Kim MK. Should we place ureteral stents in retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy?: Consideration of surgical techniques and complications. Korean J Urol. 2014; 55:511-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2014.55.8.511
Matias DB, Alvim RG, Ribas M, et al. Laparoscopic treatment of ureterolithiasis: our experience. Actas Urol Esp. 2009; 33:667-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0210-4806(09)74205-6
Derouiche A, Belhaj K, Garbouj N, et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopy for the management of lumbar ureter stones. Prog Urol. 2008; 18:281-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2008.03.027
Gaur DD, Trivedi S, Prabhudesai MR, Madhusudhana HR, Gopichand M. AA. BJU Int. 2002; 89:339-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.01562.x
Keeley FX, Gialas I, Pillai M, et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: the Edinburgh experience. BJU Int. 1999; 84:765-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00287.x
Khalil M, Omar R, Abdel-Baky S, et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; which is better: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach?Turk J Urol. 2015; 41:185-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2015.03442
Zhu W, Li J, Yuan J, Liu Y, et al. A prospective and randomised trial comparing fluoroscopic, total ultrasonographic, and combined guidance for renal access in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. BJU Int. 2017; 119:612-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13703
Singh V, Sinha RJ, Gupta DK, et al. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized comparison study. J Urol. 2013; 189:940-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.114
Huri E, Basok EK, Ugurlu O, et al. Experiences in laparoscopic removal of upper ureteral stones: multicenter analysis of cases, based on the TurkUroLap Group. J Endourol. 2010; 24:1279-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2009.0536

How to Cite

Eslahi, A. ., Ahmed, F. ., Rahimi, M. ., Jafari, S. H., Hosseini, S. H. ., Al-wageeh, S. ., Shirazi, P. M. Z. ., Al-naggar, K. ., Al-shami , E. ., & Taghrir, M. H. . (2021). Outcome of Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy (TPLU) for proximal ureteral stone > 15 mm: Our experience with 60 cases. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 93(3), 330–335. https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2021.3.330