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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |