Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts LOGIN
  • Users Online:258
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 4-8

Does laparoscopy has a place in managing urinary stones in the era of mini- and micro-PCNL


Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Aden University, Aden, Yemen

Date of Submission09-Oct-2017
Date of Acceptance11-Oct-2017
Date of Web Publication26-Sep-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mohammed Mahdi Babakri
Faculty of Medicine, Aden University, Khormaksar, Aden
Yemen
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/SJL.SJL_8_17

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Introduction: Surgical management of urinary stones has witnessed major development in the last few decades. After the successful introduction of Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), the urologist's armamentarium for treating stones became versatile by adoption of rapidly evolving technologies that increasingly replaced the traditional open surgery.There are special situations when SWL and endourology is not the optimal choice and open surgery was the only option at a time, here comes the role of laparoscopy to replace the open surgery for dealing with these cases where endourology has major limitations. Hereby we will highlight the current international trend in laparoscopic surgery for urolithiasis and demonstrate our limited experience in laparoscopic stone surgery in ten patients in Aden, Yemen.
Patient and Method: From March 2011 to September 2017. Ten consecutive patients' ages 4-60 years (mean 38 years) with renal and ureteral stones underwent laparoscopic removal of their stones. The indications for laparoscopy were; unavailability of pediatric PNL setup in two children, failed of SWL in one, renal stones with concomitant PUJO in one, and large impacted ureter stones in the rest of patients.
Result: Stone largest diameter ranged from 25 to 45 mm (mean 28 mm), operative time ranged from one to 4 hours (mean 2.3 hours) and hospital stay ranged from four to seven days (mean 5 days). The procedure completed successfully an all, but one patient in whom conversion to open ureterolithotomy performed, because of difficulty to access the large impacted intramural stone, no major intra or post-operative complications, no blood transfusion needed. One patient develop prolonged urine leakage for 10 days managed conservatively. Follow up after three, six and 12 months with plain abdominal x-ray (KUB) ultrasonography (US) and Urography (IVU) when indicated showed no residual stones and no newly developed hydronephrosis.
Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery is safe and effective in management of large renal and ureter stones in patients who are not suitable candidate for endourology.

Keywords: Laparoscopic surgery, pyelolithotomy, retroperitoneoscopy, uretrolithotomy


How to cite this article:
Babakri MM, Saed KA, Break FB, Lahdan M. Does laparoscopy has a place in managing urinary stones in the era of mini- and micro-PCNL. Saudi J Laparosc 2019;4:4-8

How to cite this URL:
Babakri MM, Saed KA, Break FB, Lahdan M. Does laparoscopy has a place in managing urinary stones in the era of mini- and micro-PCNL. Saudi J Laparosc [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Oct 13];4:4-8. Available from: http://www.saudijl.org/text.asp?2019/4/1/4/267861


  Introduction Top


Surgical management of urinary stones has witnessed a major development in the past few decades. After the successful introduction of shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL) by Chaussy and Schmit in 1980,[1] the urologist's armamentarium for treating stones became versatile by adoption of rapidly evolving technologies that increasingly replaced the traditional open surgery.

The introduction of laparoscopic surgery in urology practice has lagged behind other specialties for a while; recently, there is a trend toward increasingly using laparoscopic surgery in treating various benign and malignant urological diseases.

SWL and endourology have been established as the main techniques in treating urinary stones.[2]

However, there are special situations when SWL and endourology are not the optimal choice and open surgery was the only option at a period of time, and here comes the role of laparoscopy to replace the open surgery for dealing with these cases where endourology has major limitations.[3],[4]

To present our local experience in laparoscopic stone surgery and to highlight the current trend in laparoscopic management of urinary stones, we retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of all patients treated by laparoscopic surgery for urinary stones at our center. Furthermore, international literatures were reviewed for studies and articles concerning the laparoscopic management of urinary stones using Medline database and major international urology journal archives.


  Patients and Method Top


The clinical records of all patients treated by laparoscopy for renal and ureteral stones up to September 2017 were reviewed, and all patients' pre-, intra-, and postoperative data were collected and analyzed manually; range and mean values were mainly used for this purpose [Table 1].
Table 1: Patients' pre-, intra-, and post-operative parameters

Click here to view


The indications for laparoscopy were unavailability of pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) setup in two children, failed of SWL in one patient, and large impacted ureter stones in the rest of patients.


  Results Top


Surgical technique

For renal and upper ureter stones, the patient was placed in slandered flank position; for mid- and lower-ureter stones, the patient was placed in supine position with elevation of the ipsilateral side; and head-down position to help bowl to fall down away from the surgical field.

For transperitoneal laparoscopy (TL), three ports were used: one 12-mm umbilical trocar for camera and two 5-mm trocars for instruments; the fourth 5-mm trocar was used in some cases to help retracting the kidney [Figure 1] and [Figures 2].
Figure 1: Patient's position and port configuration for transperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy

Click here to view
Figure 2: Patient's position and port configuration for transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for mid- and lower-ureter stones

Click here to view


For retroperitoneoscopy, a 2-cm incision was made below the tip of the 12th rib and hand dissection was made to create a space for a balloon made of the middle finger of No. 8 gloves [Figure 3].
Figure 3: Balloon made of No. 8 glove's finger used for creation of retroperitoneal space

Click here to view


A 10-mm trocar was inserted for the camera by open method at the initial incision and another two 5-mm trocars at the anterior axillary lines, one on the same level as the primary trocar and another just above the iliac crest [Figure 4].
Figure 4: Patient's position and port configuration for retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy

Click here to view


From March 2011 to September 2017, ten consecutive patients (nine males and one female), aged 4–60 years (mean: 36 years), with renal and ureteral stones underwent laparoscopic removal of their stones at our urology center in Aden [Table 1].

The largest diameter of the stone ranged from 25 to 45 mm (mean: 28 mm), operative time ranged from 1 to 4 h (mean: 2.3 h), and hospital stay ranged from 4 to 7 days (mean: 5 days). All patients were stented by retrograde cystoscopy at the beginning of the procedure, if not already stented. The approach was transperitoneal in seven and retroperitoneal in three patients.

The procedure was completed successfully in all patient except one in whom conversion to open ureterolithotomy performed, because of difficulty to access the large impacted intramural stone, no major intra- or post-operative complications, no blood transfusion needed. One patient developed prolonged urine leakage for 10 days which was managed conservatively.

Follow-up after 3, 6, and 12 months with plain abdominal X-ray (KUB) ultrasonography and intravenous urography when indicated showed no residual stones and no newly developed hydronephrosis [Table 1].


  Discussion Top


Gaur described the first successful retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RLP) in 1994.[5] The advantage of laparoscopy for large renal stone removal over PNL is the complete visual control of the structures of interest, thus minimizing the possibility of major bleeding or colon injury. The possibility of treating other associated pathologies such as ureteropelvic junction obstruction is another advantage of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LP).[6]

Zhao et al. performed a meta-analysis on studies comparing PNL and LP on 996 patients and found that LP has more stone-free rate and less complications, especially bleeding; however, PNL has shorter operative time.[7] The same results were obtained by Wang et al. in another meta-analysis published in 2013 in the Journal of Urology.[8] Haggag et al. reported similar results in a nonrandomized comparative study and they reported shorter hospital stay for LP; the small number of patients and nonrandomized nature of the study were the major limitations of their study.[9]

Using RLP versus PNL, Li et al. found no significant differences in the mean postoperative hospital stay (4.5 2.3 vs. 4.3 1.3 days), rate of blood transfusion (0% vs. 1.1%), conversion rate (0% vs. 3.4%), and rate of total postoperative complication (P > 0.05). The procedural duration and mean drop in hemoglobin levels were significantly lower in the RLP.[10]

Al-Hunayan et al. found no difference in estimated blood loss, stone-free rate, or hospital stay, and the operative time was longer in RLP.[11]

Although this is an initial experience, our study, which is the first in the whole country, showed similar result in operative time, hospital stay, complications, and stone-free rates to other internationally reported series. Blood transfusion is not needed in all of our cases in comparison to more than 20% of 60 patients treated by PNL in our center in the same period (unpublished data).

Ureterorenoscopy (URS) has been established as the modality of choice for treating ureteral stones with high success rate and minimal complications; however, there are situations when URS is less optimal to deal with; for example, large stone burden [Figure 5] and [Figure 6] or stone associated with stricture not amenable to endoscopic management.
Figure 5: Intravenous urography showing large right lower ureter stone surprisingly causing no obstruction

Click here to view
Figure 6: The same stone in figure during extraction using a bag made of No. 6 gloves

Click here to view


In comparison to URS, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) achieves high stone-free rate;[12],[13] the operative time tends to be longer in LU.

The ureter can be approached via transperitoneal[14] or retroperitoneal route.[15],[16],[17] Transperitoneal access has the advantages of wide space and familiar anatomy, but there is greater risk of bowel injury and colon mobilization is sometimes needed. Qadri et al. reported high success of retroperitoneal LU in 123 cases with low morbidity; the mean operative time was 88 min.[17]

Our study showed a male-to-female ratio of 9:1, which is higher than internationally reported ratios, although no conclusion could be drawn because of the small number of our series.

Laparoscopic surgery for urinary stones is safe and highly successful with low morbidity, and the main disadvantages of laparoscopy are the long learning curve and longer operative time in comparison to endourology.


  Conclusion Top


Laparoscopic management of urolithiasis has its place in certain cases where SWL and endourology are not the optimal choice; it is safe and highly effective in experienced hands at the cost of highly steep learning curve.

The small number of cases and retrospective nature are the major limitations of our study.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet 1980;2:1265-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART II. J Urol 2016;196:1161-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Stein RJ, Turna B, Nguyen MM, Aron M, Hafron JM, Gill IS, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy: Technique and outcomes. J Endourol 2008;22:1251-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475-82.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Gaur DD, Agarwal DK, Purohit KC, Darshane AS. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. J Urol 1994;151:927-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ramakumar S, Lancini V, Chan DY, Parsons JK, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty with concomitant pyelolithotomy. J Urol 2002;167:1378-80.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Zhao C, Yang H, Tang K, Xia D, Xu H, Chen Z, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic stone surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large upper urinary stones: A meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 2016;44:479-90.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Wang X, Li S, Liu T, Guo Y, Yang Z. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy compared to percutaneous nephrolithotomy as surgical management for large renal pelvic calculi: A meta-analysis. J Urol 2013;190:888-93.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Haggag YM, Morsy G, Badr MM, Al Emam AB, Farid M, Etafy M, et al. Comparative study of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large renal pelvic stones. Can Urol Assoc J 2013;7:E171-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Li S, Liu TZ, Wang XH, Zeng XT, Zeng G, Yang ZH, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of large renal pelvic calculi: A pilot study. J Endourol 2014;28:946-50.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Al-Hunayan A, Khalil M, Hassabo M, Hanafi A, Abdul-Halim H. Management of solitary renal pelvic stone: Laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2011;25:975-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Shao Y, Wang DW, Lu GL, Shen ZJ. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm. World J Urol 2015;33:1841-5.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kumar A, Vasudeva P, Nanda B, Kumar N, Das MK, Jha SK, et al. A prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower caliceal stones≤2 cm: A Single-center experience. J Endourol 2015;29:575-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Al-Sayyad A. Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy for large ureteric stones. Urol Ann 2012;4:34-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
  [Full text]  
15.
Park WJ, Kwon JO, Oh TH. The outcome of laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy for the management of upper ureteral stones larger than 10 mm: A comparison with rigid ureteroscopic removal of stones with lithoclast. Korean J Urol 2009;50:349-54.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Goel A, Hemal AK. Upper and mid-ureteric stones: A prospective unrandomized comparison of retroperitoneoscopic and open ureterolithotomy. BJU Int 2001;88:679-82.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Farooq Qadri SJ, Khan N, Khan M. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy – A single centre 10 year experience. Int J Surg 2011;9:160-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Patients and Method
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed398    
    Printed9    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded3    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]