Users Online : 122 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 ¤   Next article
 ¤   Previous article
 ¤   Table of Contents

 ¤   Similar in PUBMED
 ¤  Search Pubmed for
 ¤  Search in Google Scholar for
 ¤Related articles
 ¤   Citation Manager
 ¤   Access Statistics
 ¤   Reader Comments
 ¤   Email Alert *
 ¤   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed981    
    Printed52    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded57    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 115-120

Laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal repair of retrocaval ureter: A comparison of the surgical outcomes from two centres with a comprehensive literature review


1 Department of Urology, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Department of Urology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mustafa Zafer Temiz
Department of Urology, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Merkez Mahallesi, Dr. Sadik Ahmet Cad, 34200, Istanbul
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_293_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: The use of minimally invasive surgical approaches for the repair of retrocaval ureter (RCU) has been increased in time. However, the results of the robotic approach have not yet been compared with those of open or laparoscopic approaches. We aimed to compare the results of laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal repair of RCU from two centres. Patients and Methods: Initially, we performed a systemic literature search using MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar about the RCU. Finally, a comparison of the efficacy and outcomes of the laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal approaches for RCU repair was performed with the results of two centers. Results: The mean age was 27.5 ± 3.6 years. The mean operative time was 147 ± 63.6 min. The median estimated blood loss was 100 (20–423.9) ml. The median drain removing time and hospital stay were 2 (2–3) and 3 (2–4) days, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 17.85 ± 14.6 months. All of the parameters were similar between the laparoscopic and robotic repair groups except for the mean operative time. It was significantly shorter in robotic repair group than those of laparoscopic repair group (P = 0.02). Furthermore, a ureteral stricture of the anastomotic segment was detected in a patient treated with laparoscopy during the follow-up. Conclusions: Robotic transperitoneal approach may shorten the operative time enabling a greater comfort in repair of RCU.






[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*


        
Print this article     Email this article

© 2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04