RETROPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOLITHOTOMY IN RENAL PELVIC STONE VERSUS OPEN SURGERY - A COMPARATIVE STUDY.

Background. The introduction of endourological procedures such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureterorenoscopy have led to a revolution in the the management of urinary stone disease. The indications for open stone surgery have been narrowed significantly, making it a second- or third-line treatment option. Aims and Objectives. To study the safety and efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy in retroperitoneal renal stone. We compared the results of laparoscopic and open surgery in terms of easy accessibility, operative period, renal injuries, and early recovery. Methods. This prospective study was conducted on renal pelvic stone cases from January 2009 to February 2016 in Suchkhand Hospital, Agra, India. The study included a total of 1700 cases with the diagnosis of solitary renal pelvic stones. In group A - 850 cases - retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy was performed, while group B - 850 cases - underwent open pyelolithotomy. Results. The mean operative time was less in group B than group A (74.83 min vs. 94.43 min) which was significant (p<0.001).The blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (63 mL vs. 103mL). There were statistically significant differences in the post-operative pain scores, and postoperative complications compared to group B (p<0.001). The mean hospital stay was less in group A (p<0.03), which was significant. Conclusion. Laparoscopic surgery reduces analgesic requirements, hospital stay, and blood loss. The disadvantages include the reduced working space, the cost of equipment and the availability of a trained surgeon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Clujul Medical is the property of Cluj Medical University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)