Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy Research Articles

First Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy with HUGO Robot-Assisted Surgery System

First Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy with HUGO Robot-Assisted Surgery System

Subcapsular renal haematoma after ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a single-centre, retrospective study in China

ObjectivesTo investigate the incidence, predisposing factors, diagnosis and management of subcapsular renal haematoma (SRH) after ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL).DesignRetrospective observational study.SettingShandong Provincial Hospital, a 4500-bed tertiary hospital in China.ParticipantsThe data from...

Double‐J stent placement during laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: the “seagull” technique

To present a new technique of double-j stent (DJ) placement during laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LUL). Following the extraction of the stone, a 6 French DJ open-end stent is prepared: two straight-tip hydrophilic guidewires are inserted into the appropriate lateral holes of the stent, as identified by the preoperative evaluation of the CT scan. Approximately 5 centimeters of each wire protrude from the proximal and distal ends of the stent to straighten its terminal curl, thus resembling the wings of a flying seagull. The remaining proximal portions of both guide wires are left within each guidewire dispenser. The two ends of the stent are grasped together in a U-fashion and inserted into the abdomen through a 10mm port. Once in the abdomen, the longer segment of the stent is inserted and pushed into the ureterotomy until it reaches the target site. The guide wire is then removed. The same procedure is repeated for the other end of the stent. A brief literature review on the currents techniques of laparoscopic DJ placement is also presented. Analyzing the outcomes of 21 LUL, the "seagull" technique is time-saving and safe. No perioperative complications were encountered. There is no risk of enlarging or tearing the ureterotomy and no need for patient replacement, extra cystoscopic or ureteroscopic procedures as well as of using modified guidewires and closed-tip stents. We described our step-by-step technique for DJ placement during LUL.

Comparison of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and retrograde lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones

The current approach in the surgical treatment of ureteral calculi involves the use of endourological procedures such as retrograde ureteroscopy with lithotripsy or percutaneous antegrade lithotripsy in the proximal ureter. Ureterolithotomy as a treatment method is of an auxiliary nature and is used when endourological intervention is impossible or in case of intraoperative collisions during access conversion. However, there are several comparative studies on lithotripsy and lithotomy.The aim. Comparative analysis of the outcomes of laparoscopic lithotomy and retrograde lithotripsy in the surgical treatment of proximal ureteral calculi, as well as the search for predictors of prolonged disability.Materials and methods. A prospective randomized multicenter study included 53 patients with an established diagnosis of ureterolithiasis who were treated in the period 2018–2021 in urological hospitals in Irkutsk. All patients were divided into two comparison groups: Lithotomy group (group 1; n = 30) and Lithotripsy group (group 2; n = 23).Results. When analyzing the results of the study, it was found that the level of complications of class II–III according to Clavien – Dindo was statistically comparable in both groups (p > 0.05). However, in absolute and relative terms, the prevalence of this indicator was noted during retrograde ureterolithotripsy. According to hard endpoints (reoperation, presence of residual stones or migration during the operation), 29 (96.6 %) patients of group 1 and 17 (73.4 %) patients of group 2 (p = 0.514) were successfully operated on.Conclusion. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy may be offered to patients with large proximal ureteral stones as an alternative treatment option with better residual stone freedom but generally similar overall outcomes and complication rates.

Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy is an effective and safe method for >15 mm impacted ureteral stones in elderly patients: single center 10-year experience.

The aim of our study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy operation in elderly patients with large and impacted ureteral stones. Between January 2011 and July 2021, 66 elderly patients with impacted, > 15 mm upper and middle ureteral stones underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in our center. The data for all patients were evaluated retrospectively. The mean age of the patients was 65 ± 5.43 years. The mean stone size was 20.2 ± 2.5 mm. The mean operation time was 93.6 ± 13.2 minutes. Among patients, 16 (24.2%) had history of unsuccessful shock wave lithotripsy and 12 (18.1%) patients had history of ureterorenoscopy. Stone-free rate was 95.4% in all patients. Modified Clavien grade 1 complications were seen in 18 patients (27.2%), but no significant perioperative and postoperative complications were observed. Urinary extravasation lasting 5, 7 and 9 days was observed in 5 patients (7.5%) who were treated conservatively. The mean hospital stay was 3.4 ± 1.52 days. The patients were asymptomatic at the 6th week post-op follow-up, and no stones were seen on direct X-ray and abdominal ultrasonography. Intravenous urography and non-contrast tomography (NCCT) taken 3 months later did not show any obstruction or stenosis in the ureter. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy can be considered as the first treatment option for elderly patients with impacted and large ureteral stones, thanks to its high success and acceptable complication rates.

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy for large, impacted calculi in upper and mid ureter

Background: Urolithiasis is a common recurrent condition in which the stones are formed within the urinary tract and lead to symptoms when they cause obstruction in the renalpelvicalyceal system, ureters, bladder and the urethra.Most cases of urolithiasis can be managed with non-invasive strategies, however, urolithiasis associated with infections, obstructions, and renal failure may require interventional measures such as ureteroscopy (URS), Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Although open surgeries arealmost obsolete in urological centers, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) is required in the special group of patientsand also as a salvage procedure for failed URS &/or SWL. It is also widely used as a primary procedure for large stones at centers that do not have access to URS and SWL. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy, safety, and complication rates of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of large, impacted proximal, and mid ureteric calculi. Methodology: Thirty patients who underwent laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy between February 2010 to May 2012 were enrolled in the study.Proximal and mid ureteric stones were removed retroperitoneally.

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

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.

PNEUMATIC URETEROSCOPIC LITHOTRIPSY VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC URETEROLITHOTOMY FOR LARGE UPPER URETERAL STONES- AN INITIAL EXPERIENCE.

Objective: The treatment of choice for large upper ureteral stones is controversial. In the developing nations, semi rigid ureteroscopy is the preferred treatment modality for ureteric stones even in upper ureter. However, Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy has started gaining acceptance for the treatment of large proximal ureteral stones. This study was done to compare solely the outcomes of semi-rigid pneumatic ureterolithotripsy (URSL) and transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) for large upper ureteric stones. Methods: In all, 30 patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomised into 2 groups: URSLand LU. The groups were compared for stone clearance rate, operative time, complication rates.Results: LU had signicantly higher stone clearance rate both at discharge (p=0.014) and at 3 weeks post operatively (p = 0.033) than URSL. On the other hand, URSLhad signicantly shorter mean operating time (p&lt;0.0001), length of hospital stay (p=0.0013) and required less auxiliary procedures than LU group. No major complications were observed and the complication rate was not statistically signicant among the groups (p=0.41).Conclusion: Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy was associated with higher stone clearance rate but with longer hospital stay and operative time than URSL, however the complications were similar. Consequently, the procedure of choice for large proximal ureteric calculi should be based on the expertise of the surgeon, patient's choice and the availability of equipments.

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Both percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) are effective treatment options for large proximal ureteral stones. To perform a meta-analysis on this topic to assess the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of the two procedures. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Ovid and Scopus to identify eligible suitable studies until May 2022. All studies comparing LU vs PCNL in large proximal ureteral stones were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software was used to analyze statistical significance. A total of nine publications involving 933 patients (LU 465; PCNL 468) were included, of which 4 were randomized control trails (RCTs) and 5 were non-RCTs. The meta-analysis of available data showed that compared with PCNL, LU had a higher initial stone-free rate (OR = 3.26; p = 0.004), but longer operative time (WMD = 35.08 min; p = 0.0003). However, the final stone-free rate (OR = 2.08; p = 0.07) and length of hospital stay (WMD = 0.32 d; p = 0.48) were comparable between the two groups. Meanwhile, LU had a lower transfusion rate (OR = 0.13; p = 0.007) than PCNL. There was no significant difference in terms of complications (OR = 0.97; p = 0.84), Clavien-Dindo score ≥ 3 complications (OR = 1.03; p = 0.93), auxiliary procedures (OR = 0.44; p = 0.08), or ureteral stenosis (OR = 0.24; p = 0.13) between LU and PCNL. Our meta-analysis revealed that LU is a safe and feasible option for large proximal ureteral stones with a higher initial stone-free rate and lower transfusion rate compared with PCNL.

Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterotomy: A Mini-Invasive Option for Ureteral Stones

Background and Objective: Laparoscopy can be an alternative modality in the management of ureteral stones. We herein present our experience with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy although most ureteral stones are managed using endourologic techniques, open surgery, or shockwave lithotripsy. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was performed from January 2014 to December 2019 on 20 patients with ureteral stones who were treated using transperitoneal laparoscopic access. We collected data on patients’ ages, genders, clinical profiles, relevant medical history, sizes of the calculi, localisation of the calculi as confirmed by imaging, and outcome of lithotripsy. Continuous data were presented as mean values and standard deviations (for normally distributed data) and medians with interquartile ranges (for skewed data). Categorical data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Results: We included 20 patients (13 males and 7 females) with a mean age of 40.40 ± 13.25 years. The mean stone size was 18.5 ± 3.05 mm and all procedures were completed laparoscopically. The mean operative time was 96 ± 22.34 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was less than 150 ml, and none of the patients received a blood transfusion. There was no intraoperative complication or postoperative complications, except for leakage of urine in the suture area. The mean hospital stay was 2.05 ± 0.69 days and the double J stent was removed after an average of 20 days post-operatively. The stone-free rate was 100% and after a mean follow-up period of 3 months, there was no stone recurrence. Conclusion: Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is an effective and safe technique in the management of ureteric stones. The benefits of this technique include minimal postoperative morbidity, short postoperative hospitalization, a short convalescence period, and remarkable cosmetic results.

Comparative Study of Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Versus Retroperitoneoscopic Ureterolithotomy Techniques

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 &gt;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.

Using retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of impacted upper ureteric calculi.

BackgroundThe ideal treatment for upper ureteric calculi is still debatable, particularly for patients with large, impacted ureteric calculi. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RLU) may be a worthwhile alternative to open surgery. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated our clinical experience associated with RLU performed for impacted upper ureteric calculi (>1.5 cm) help urologists in clinical practice and provide a reference for clinical work.MethodsA total of 64 cases (38 males; 26 females) with impacted upper ureteric calculi between April 2018 and January 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. The basic information of the included research subjects are as follows: The mean age was 50.8±25.4 years. The largest stone diameter was 1.8±0.3 cm. The mean stone retention time was 42±11 days. The mean degree of hydronephrosis was 2.8±1.2 cm.ResultsThe mean operative time was 85.4±18.3 minutes. The mean hospital duration was 7.5±1.8 days. The stone-free rate was 98.4%. Two patients required additional intervention. Post-operative fever developed in 3 patients. The decrease in hemoglobin levels was 7.8±3.6 g/L. The increase in procalcitonin (PCT) level was 3.7±1.8 ng/mL. No major complications, for example, sepsis, bleeding, bowel injury, or cardiopulmonary morbidities, were reported.ConclusionsRLU should be regarded as an excellent first line treatment modality for impacted upper ureteric calculi (>1.5 cm) owing to the high success rate, low complication rate, and the short length of operative time and hospital duration.

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

We aim to review our experience of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (TPLU) for proximal ureteric stone more than 15 mm. 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. 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). TPLU is a harmless option for managing proximal ureteric stone as a primary procedure or salvage procedure with good outcomes and acceptable complication rates.

Modern Methods of Treatment for Proximal Ureterolithiasis

Urolithiasis is a disease characterized by the formation of stones in the urinary tract. According to statistics, SCC causes about 30% of hospitalizations in the urology department. Treatment of SCC is divided into conservative and operative. The choice of method depends on age, clinical course of the disease, general condition of the patient, anatomical and functional condition of the kidneys and the size of the localization of the calculus. Methods of treatment of SC have changed significantly in recent years. Due to the technical achievements of the method of open ureterolithotomy, which was once the standard method of treatment of so-called «complicated» concretions of the ureter, evolved into a laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, and with the advent of ultrasonic and laser lithotriptors – began the newest era of minimally invasive urology– extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy and endourology: antegrade percutaneous ureterolithotripsy, retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy and flexible retrograde uretherolithotripsy (FURS). The purpose of the work – on the basis of scientific literature to assess the effectiveness, safety and profitability of modern methods of surgical treatment for proximal ureterolithiasis. During the scientific research, attention was paid to the following parameters: stone free rate (SFR), postoperative pain level, need for painkillers, number of postoperative bed-days, presence of postoperative fever, hemoglobin level, need for blood transfusion, and on the economic component during the implementation of a technique. The principles of treatment of patients with large proximal ureterolithiasis are described in the clinical guidelines of the European and American Associations of Urologists. However, for example, which of the 3 proposed methods of treatment of large proximal ureterolithiasis to choose – there is no consensus from the world urological community. Percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy is the preferred method of choice in patients with large proximal ureteral stones that cannot be removed by contact or extracorporeal ureterolithotripsy, characterized by a high level of absence of stones and minimal complications, optimal post operative and high indicators of economic attractiveness of this technique.

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large lower ureteral stone: a case series report

BackgroundIdentifying the precise location of the lower ureter is crucial in not only ureteral surgeries but also the other surgeries that may cause ureteral injury. Although a variety of approaches have been applied to detect the location of the lower ureter, the majority of them had an association with several complications or be difficult to perform perfectly or be time-consuming.Case presentationSeven patients with distal ureteric stones of the size ranged from 2 to 3 cm. All patients entered the study after signing the informed consent, and the case report is based on CARE guidelines. After specifying the inner ring of the inguinal canal, the posterior peritoneum was opened and dissected from an area of 2 cm medial and 2 cm inferior to the inner ring. Thereafter, the stone was extracted from the precise location of them, which was identified by ureteral pinching.ConclusionWe assumed that we were easily able to identify the site of the lower ureter through 2 cm medial and 2 cm inferior to the inner ring. The result of our study on seven patients demonstrated that this maneuver can minimize the time of surgery and no complications have been seen while this approach was applied.

A profile of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: four years initial experience at Persahabatan Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia

Introduction: The introduction of laparoscopy in the field of urology has advanced surgery into a minimally invasive era, achieving better perioperative outcomes and lower incidence of complications. This study reports on the profile of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy performed in Persahabatan Hospital, Jakarta.Method: This retrospective study examined laparoscopic procedures done during the years 2016-2019. Demographic characteristics, surgical duration, length of stay, perioperative parameters, and antibiotics prescribed were recorded.Result: A total of 30 cases were reported. The gender ratio was 2:1 (male to female), with a mean age of 54.2 ± 9.9. Twenty-two (73.3%) had proximal ureteric stone. Surgical duration and length of stay had means of 197.4 ± 46.1 minutes and 3.6 ± 1.1 days, respectively. The mean blood loss, preoperative and postoperative hematocrit was 40.5 ± 27.8 mL, 36.14% ± 5.73 and 35.76% ± 5.71, respectively. Mean preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin was 12.27 g/dL ± 1.84 and 12.12 g/dL ± 1.89, respectively. The mean postoperative pain VAS score was 2.1 ± 0.8. The most prescribed antibiotics for the procedure were cefoperazone (53.33%).Conclusion: Considerably short duration of operations and hospital stay comparable with other study findings were reported. This study can be applied as baseline data for further research.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis

To compare the safety and efficacy of various surgical modalities to manage large (> 1 cm) upper ureter stones. Systematic literature search was conducted to include all randomized studies comparing various treatment options for large (> 1 cm) upper ureteric stones. This review included 13 randomized studies with 1871 patients. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LUL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) were superior to ureteroscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for stone-free rates and need for auxiliary treatments. LUL and PNL were equally effective for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments. According to SUCRA values for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments, LUL was the best, followed by PNL. For the duration of surgery, there was no significant difference among all the techniques on network analyses, and SWL was the best according to SUCRA values. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for URS than LUL and PNL from network analysis, but there was no significant difference for the rest of the comparisons. Overall complications were similar in all the groups. According to the CINeMa approach, the confidence rating ranged from “very low” to “moderate” for various comparisons. LUL followed by PNL is the most efficacious treatment modality for upper ureteric stones compared to SWL and URS in terms of stone-free rates. However, due to the poor quality of included studies, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.

Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm.

Background:The optimal treatment for large impacted proximal ureteral stones remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and potential complications of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones with size greater than 15 mm.Methods:A total of 268 patients with impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm who received MPCNL or RPLU procedures were enrolled consecutively between January 2014 and January 2019. Data on surgical outcomes and complications were collected and analyzed.Results:Demographic and ureteral stone characteristics found between these two groups were not significantly different. The surgical success rate (139/142, 97.9% vs. 121/126, 96.0%, P = 0.595) and stone-free rate after 1 month (139/142, 97.9% vs. 119/126, 94.4%, P = 0.245) of RPLU group were marginally higher than that of the MPCNL group, but there was no significant difference. There was no significant difference in the drop of hemoglobin between the two groups (0.8 ± 0.6 vs. 0.4 ± 0. 2 g/dL, P = 0.621). The mean operative time (68.2 ± 12.5 vs. 87.2 ± 16.8 min, P = 0.041), post-operative analgesics usage (2/121, 1.7% vs. 13/139, 9.4%, P = 0.017), length of hospital stay after surgery (2.2 ± 0.6 vs. 4.8 ± 0.9 days, P < 0.001), double J stent time (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 days, P = 0.027), time of catheterization (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 3.5 ± 0.5 days, P < 0.001), and time of drainage tube (2.3 ± 0.3 vs. 4.6 ± 0.6 days, P < 0.001) of MPCNL group were significantly shorter than that of the RPLU group. The complication rate was similar between the two groups (20/121, 16.5% vs. 31/139, 22.3%, P = 0.242).Conclusions:MPCNL and RPLU have similar surgical success and stone clearance in treating impacted proximal ureteral stones greater than 15 mm, while patients undergoing MPCNL had a lower post-operative pain rate and a faster recovery.

How safe and effective is stentless laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in elderly patients?

With the improvement of minimally invasive urology procedures, open surgical interventions are less common to treat ureteral calculus. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) indications are large multiple and/or impacted ureteral calculus that may not be treated with shock-wave lithotripsy or ureterorenoscopy approaches. The aim of our study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of stentless LU in elderly patients. Between October 2011 and December 2019, 38 geriatric patients underwent stentless transperitoneal LU for upper/mid ureteral calculi. The transperitoneal route was applied in all patients by two surgeons. No double J stent inserted in any patient. The data of all patients reviewed retrospectively. The average age was 64.60±3.70years. The mean calculi size was 19.42±1.41mm. Ten patients had unsuccessful shock wave lithotripsy or ureterorenoscopy history. The calculi-free rate was 100%. Clavien grade 1 complications were seen in 11 (28.9%) cases. No major perioperative and postoperative complications were encountered. The average length of hospital stay was 3.24±1.53days. The significant advances in medical technology and healthcare, lead a rising number of geriatric patients to take benefit of even complicated surgery. Although laparoscopy and its safety in the geriatric population pursues a challenge and the assessment of this procedure is hence obligatory, we think that stentless LU is safe, economical and less uncomfortable for elderly patients.

Combined Retroperitoneal and Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Procedures by a Single Surgeon: Boon to Economically and Medically Backward Areas.

IntroductionThis study was done to evaluate our experience of combining a retroperitoneal laparoscopic urological operation with other transperitoneal laparoscopic operations.Materials and methodsWe present a retrospective study of a series of 20 cases of retroperitoneal laparoscopic urological surgeries combined with at least one transperitoneal laparoscopic procedures, performed by a senior minimally invasive surgeon, between March 2013 and August 2020. We have excluded three patients where either of the procedures required conversion to open surgery. We retrospectively reviewed all the data regarding the patient’s demographics, combined surgical procedures done, operative time taken, blood loss, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and days of hospital stay.ResultsTotal of 20 patients had undergone simultaneous retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic procedures. A total of nine (45%) cases comprised a combination of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two patients had undergone a combination of three laparoscopic procedures in the same operation. The mean hospital stay was 3.6 days. Blood loss was minimal to moderate in all the patients, none needed any perioperative blood transfusion. No major complications were noted in any patients.ConclusionCombining a retroperitoneal laparoscopic urological procedure with another transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery is very much feasible. It becomes even easier and relevant provided both the procedures are performed by a single, experienced laparoscopic surgeon.