Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral calculi: Comparison to rigid ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To define the role of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral stones, we compared the outcomes of primary LU with those of ureterorenoscopy (URS), the currently established modality in this circumstance. Materials and Methods: Among 71 patients who underwent LU in our institution between February 2005 and January 2010, 32 patients with stone size over 1.5 cm who underwent LU as a primary modality without prior shockwave lithotripsy or URS and for whom LU was conducted as a separate procedure were exclusively enrolled. Based on preoperative characteristics of patients and stones, this patient group was matched with the URS group (n = 32, rigid pneumatic lithotripter) during the same period. Results: The LU group and the URS group were similar in age, gender distribution, body mass index, stone size (18.1 ± 4.2 versus 17.9 ± 3.6 mm; P = .88), and stone location. Members of the LU group required a longer operative time (118 ± 53 versus 59 ± 41 minutes; P < .001) and hospital stay (5.9 ± 2.1 versus 3.4 ± 2.4 days; P < .001) and had greater blood loss (155 ± 62 mL). However, stone clearance rate (no remnant stone in postoperative X-ray of the kidney, ureter, and bladder) in a single session was marginally higher in the LU group (93.8% versus 68.8%; P = .06). Total complication rate was not significant and was slightly higher in the URS group (12.5% versus 21.9%, P = .51). Stone migration into the kidney (n = 2 versus 5), ureteral perforation (n = 0 versus 3), open conversion (n = 1 versus 2), and ureteral stricture (n = 1 versus 2), as long-term complications, occurred more frequently in the URS group. Conclusions: For large proximal ureteral stones, LU can be conducted safely as a first-line procedure without increase of complication rate, compared with conventional URS. Although LU required a prolonged operative time and a longer hospital stay and blood loss was greater, our data showed an advantage of LU in high clearance rate in a single procedure.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)7-13
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Ureteral Calculi
Lithotripsy
Operative Time
Length of Stay
Kidney
Age Distribution
Ureter
Pathologic Constriction
Urinary Bladder
Body Mass Index
Research Design
X-Rays

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

@article{b5ac05dcd2694eab9910f759cfcab1bb,
title = "Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral calculi: Comparison to rigid ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy",
abstract = "Objective: To define the role of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral stones, we compared the outcomes of primary LU with those of ureterorenoscopy (URS), the currently established modality in this circumstance. Materials and Methods: Among 71 patients who underwent LU in our institution between February 2005 and January 2010, 32 patients with stone size over 1.5 cm who underwent LU as a primary modality without prior shockwave lithotripsy or URS and for whom LU was conducted as a separate procedure were exclusively enrolled. Based on preoperative characteristics of patients and stones, this patient group was matched with the URS group (n = 32, rigid pneumatic lithotripter) during the same period. Results: The LU group and the URS group were similar in age, gender distribution, body mass index, stone size (18.1 ± 4.2 versus 17.9 ± 3.6 mm; P = .88), and stone location. Members of the LU group required a longer operative time (118 ± 53 versus 59 ± 41 minutes; P < .001) and hospital stay (5.9 ± 2.1 versus 3.4 ± 2.4 days; P < .001) and had greater blood loss (155 ± 62 mL). However, stone clearance rate (no remnant stone in postoperative X-ray of the kidney, ureter, and bladder) in a single session was marginally higher in the LU group (93.8{\%} versus 68.8{\%}; P = .06). Total complication rate was not significant and was slightly higher in the URS group (12.5{\%} versus 21.9{\%}, P = .51). Stone migration into the kidney (n = 2 versus 5), ureteral perforation (n = 0 versus 3), open conversion (n = 1 versus 2), and ureteral stricture (n = 1 versus 2), as long-term complications, occurred more frequently in the URS group. Conclusions: For large proximal ureteral stones, LU can be conducted safely as a first-line procedure without increase of complication rate, compared with conventional URS. Although LU required a prolonged operative time and a longer hospital stay and blood loss was greater, our data showed an advantage of LU in high clearance rate in a single procedure.",
author = "Ko, {Young Hwii} and Sung-Gu Kang and Park, {Jae Young} and Bae, {Jae Hyun} and Kang, {Seok Ho} and Cho, {Dae Yeon} and Park, {Hong Seok} and Jun Cheon and Lee, {Jeong Gu} and Je-Jong Kim",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/lap.2010.0340",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "7--13",
journal = "Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques - Part A",
issn = "1092-6429",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral calculi

T2 - Comparison to rigid ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy

AU - Ko, Young Hwii

AU - Kang, Sung-Gu

AU - Park, Jae Young

AU - Bae, Jae Hyun

AU - Kang, Seok Ho

AU - Cho, Dae Yeon

AU - Park, Hong Seok

AU - Cheon, Jun

AU - Lee, Jeong Gu

AU - Kim, Je-Jong

PY - 2011/1/1

Y1 - 2011/1/1

N2 - Objective: To define the role of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral stones, we compared the outcomes of primary LU with those of ureterorenoscopy (URS), the currently established modality in this circumstance. Materials and Methods: Among 71 patients who underwent LU in our institution between February 2005 and January 2010, 32 patients with stone size over 1.5 cm who underwent LU as a primary modality without prior shockwave lithotripsy or URS and for whom LU was conducted as a separate procedure were exclusively enrolled. Based on preoperative characteristics of patients and stones, this patient group was matched with the URS group (n = 32, rigid pneumatic lithotripter) during the same period. Results: The LU group and the URS group were similar in age, gender distribution, body mass index, stone size (18.1 ± 4.2 versus 17.9 ± 3.6 mm; P = .88), and stone location. Members of the LU group required a longer operative time (118 ± 53 versus 59 ± 41 minutes; P < .001) and hospital stay (5.9 ± 2.1 versus 3.4 ± 2.4 days; P < .001) and had greater blood loss (155 ± 62 mL). However, stone clearance rate (no remnant stone in postoperative X-ray of the kidney, ureter, and bladder) in a single session was marginally higher in the LU group (93.8% versus 68.8%; P = .06). Total complication rate was not significant and was slightly higher in the URS group (12.5% versus 21.9%, P = .51). Stone migration into the kidney (n = 2 versus 5), ureteral perforation (n = 0 versus 3), open conversion (n = 1 versus 2), and ureteral stricture (n = 1 versus 2), as long-term complications, occurred more frequently in the URS group. Conclusions: For large proximal ureteral stones, LU can be conducted safely as a first-line procedure without increase of complication rate, compared with conventional URS. Although LU required a prolonged operative time and a longer hospital stay and blood loss was greater, our data showed an advantage of LU in high clearance rate in a single procedure.

AB - Objective: To define the role of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral stones, we compared the outcomes of primary LU with those of ureterorenoscopy (URS), the currently established modality in this circumstance. Materials and Methods: Among 71 patients who underwent LU in our institution between February 2005 and January 2010, 32 patients with stone size over 1.5 cm who underwent LU as a primary modality without prior shockwave lithotripsy or URS and for whom LU was conducted as a separate procedure were exclusively enrolled. Based on preoperative characteristics of patients and stones, this patient group was matched with the URS group (n = 32, rigid pneumatic lithotripter) during the same period. Results: The LU group and the URS group were similar in age, gender distribution, body mass index, stone size (18.1 ± 4.2 versus 17.9 ± 3.6 mm; P = .88), and stone location. Members of the LU group required a longer operative time (118 ± 53 versus 59 ± 41 minutes; P < .001) and hospital stay (5.9 ± 2.1 versus 3.4 ± 2.4 days; P < .001) and had greater blood loss (155 ± 62 mL). However, stone clearance rate (no remnant stone in postoperative X-ray of the kidney, ureter, and bladder) in a single session was marginally higher in the LU group (93.8% versus 68.8%; P = .06). Total complication rate was not significant and was slightly higher in the URS group (12.5% versus 21.9%, P = .51). Stone migration into the kidney (n = 2 versus 5), ureteral perforation (n = 0 versus 3), open conversion (n = 1 versus 2), and ureteral stricture (n = 1 versus 2), as long-term complications, occurred more frequently in the URS group. Conclusions: For large proximal ureteral stones, LU can be conducted safely as a first-line procedure without increase of complication rate, compared with conventional URS. Although LU required a prolonged operative time and a longer hospital stay and blood loss was greater, our data showed an advantage of LU in high clearance rate in a single procedure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79951717278&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79951717278&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/lap.2010.0340

DO - 10.1089/lap.2010.0340

M3 - Article

C2 - 21190478

AN - SCOPUS:79951717278

VL - 21

SP - 7

EP - 13

JO - Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques - Part A

JF - Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques - Part A

SN - 1092-6429

IS - 1

ER -