International journal of surgery case reports · 2019
Diagnosis and laparoscopic management of retrocaval ureter: A review of the literature and our case series.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abdessater Maher, El Khoury Raghid, Elias Sandra, Bart Stephane, Coloby Patrick, Sleiman Walid
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To expose the diagnosis and the different laparoscopic approaches for the surgical management of patients with retrocaval ureter (RCU) and to share our experience on two cases.
METHODS: Updated literature review on Pubmed and debating personal experiences including ours (double j stent insertion before the surgery, use of 4 trocards, transperitoneal approach, pyelopyelostomy for the anastomosis…), concerning the laparoscopic treatment of the RCU.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic treatment of RCU is a recommended management for many reasons: less blood loss during the surgery, a shorter hospital stay, less postoperative pain and superior esthetic results with excellent functional results. All of these findings were also a part of our experience on the two reported cases: operative time was 210 and 180 min with no significant bleeding, hospital stay was 48 h post operatively for both patients that were symptom free with no renal dilation after 2 years of close follow up. The main cause of the increased operating time is the intracorporeal anastomosis of the ureter which remains the main limiting factor of the laparoscopic surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: The literature review has clearly shown the advantages of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of retrocaval ureter. Pure laparoscopic treatment (as in our two cases), seems feasible and technically reliable, and should be the standard surgical option for the treatment of RCU.
METHODS: Updated literature review on Pubmed and debating personal experiences including ours (double j stent insertion before the surgery, use of 4 trocards, transperitoneal approach, pyelopyelostomy for the anastomosis…), concerning the laparoscopic treatment of the RCU.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic treatment of RCU is a recommended management for many reasons: less blood loss during the surgery, a shorter hospital stay, less postoperative pain and superior esthetic results with excellent functional results. All of these findings were also a part of our experience on the two reported cases: operative time was 210 and 180 min with no significant bleeding, hospital stay was 48 h post operatively for both patients that were symptom free with no renal dilation after 2 years of close follow up. The main cause of the increased operating time is the intracorporeal anastomosis of the ureter which remains the main limiting factor of the laparoscopic surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: The literature review has clearly shown the advantages of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of retrocaval ureter. Pure laparoscopic treatment (as in our two cases), seems feasible and technically reliable, and should be the standard surgical option for the treatment of RCU.