Cargando…

Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature

CONTEXT AND AIM: Retrocaval ureter (RCU), also known as circumcaval ureter, occurs due to anomalous development of inferior vena cava (IVC) and not ureter. The surgical approach for this entity has shifted from open to laparoscopic and robotic surgery. This is a relatively new line of management wit...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tamhankar, Ashwin S., Savalia, Abhishek J., Sawant, Ajit S., Pawar, Prakash W., Kasat, Gaurav V., Patil, Sunil R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5656955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29118532
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_52_17
_version_ 1783273795074654208
author Tamhankar, Ashwin S.
Savalia, Abhishek J.
Sawant, Ajit S.
Pawar, Prakash W.
Kasat, Gaurav V.
Patil, Sunil R.
author_facet Tamhankar, Ashwin S.
Savalia, Abhishek J.
Sawant, Ajit S.
Pawar, Prakash W.
Kasat, Gaurav V.
Patil, Sunil R.
author_sort Tamhankar, Ashwin S.
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT AND AIM: Retrocaval ureter (RCU), also known as circumcaval ureter, occurs due to anomalous development of inferior vena cava (IVC) and not ureter. The surgical approach for this entity has shifted from open to laparoscopic and robotic surgery. This is a relatively new line of management with very few case reports. Herein, we describe the etiopathology, our experience with six cases of transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of RCU operated at tertiary care center in India and have reviewed different management options. METHODS: From 2013 to 2016, we operated total six cases of transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of RCU. All were male patients with average age of 29.6 years (14–50). Pain was their only complaint with normal renal function and no complications. After diagnosis with CT Urography, they underwent radionuclide scan and were operated on. Postoperative follow-up was done with ultrasonography every 3 months and repeat radionuclide scan at 6 months. The maximum follow-up was for 2.5 years. RESULTS: All cases were completed laparoscopically. Average operating time was 163.2 min. Blood loss varied from 50 to 100 cc. Ureteroureterostomy was done in all patients. None developed urinary leak or recurrent obstruction postoperatively. Maximum time for the requirement of external drainage was for 4 days (2-4 days). Average postoperative time for hospitalization was 3.8 days. Follow-up ultrasound and renal scan showed unobstructed drainage. CONCLUSIONS: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach can be considered equivalent as parameters like operative time, results are comparable for these two modalities. We preferred transperitoneal approach as it provides good working space for intracorporeal suturing.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5656955
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56569552017-11-08 Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature Tamhankar, Ashwin S. Savalia, Abhishek J. Sawant, Ajit S. Pawar, Prakash W. Kasat, Gaurav V. Patil, Sunil R. Urol Ann Original Article CONTEXT AND AIM: Retrocaval ureter (RCU), also known as circumcaval ureter, occurs due to anomalous development of inferior vena cava (IVC) and not ureter. The surgical approach for this entity has shifted from open to laparoscopic and robotic surgery. This is a relatively new line of management with very few case reports. Herein, we describe the etiopathology, our experience with six cases of transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of RCU operated at tertiary care center in India and have reviewed different management options. METHODS: From 2013 to 2016, we operated total six cases of transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of RCU. All were male patients with average age of 29.6 years (14–50). Pain was their only complaint with normal renal function and no complications. After diagnosis with CT Urography, they underwent radionuclide scan and were operated on. Postoperative follow-up was done with ultrasonography every 3 months and repeat radionuclide scan at 6 months. The maximum follow-up was for 2.5 years. RESULTS: All cases were completed laparoscopically. Average operating time was 163.2 min. Blood loss varied from 50 to 100 cc. Ureteroureterostomy was done in all patients. None developed urinary leak or recurrent obstruction postoperatively. Maximum time for the requirement of external drainage was for 4 days (2-4 days). Average postoperative time for hospitalization was 3.8 days. Follow-up ultrasound and renal scan showed unobstructed drainage. CONCLUSIONS: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach can be considered equivalent as parameters like operative time, results are comparable for these two modalities. We preferred transperitoneal approach as it provides good working space for intracorporeal suturing. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5656955/ /pubmed/29118532 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_52_17 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Urology Annals http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Tamhankar, Ashwin S.
Savalia, Abhishek J.
Sawant, Ajit S.
Pawar, Prakash W.
Kasat, Gaurav V.
Patil, Sunil R.
Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature
title Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature
title_full Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature
title_fullStr Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature
title_full_unstemmed Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature
title_short Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature
title_sort transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: our experience and review of literature
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5656955/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29118532
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_52_17
work_keys_str_mv AT tamhankarashwins transperitoneallaparoscopicrepairofretrocavalureterourexperienceandreviewofliterature
AT savaliaabhishekj transperitoneallaparoscopicrepairofretrocavalureterourexperienceandreviewofliterature
AT sawantajits transperitoneallaparoscopicrepairofretrocavalureterourexperienceandreviewofliterature
AT pawarprakashw transperitoneallaparoscopicrepairofretrocavalureterourexperienceandreviewofliterature
AT kasatgauravv transperitoneallaparoscopicrepairofretrocavalureterourexperienceandreviewofliterature
AT patilsunilr transperitoneallaparoscopicrepairofretrocavalureterourexperienceandreviewofliterature