Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Experience and learning curve of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy.
Ercil, Hakan; Altunkol, Adem; Kuyucu, Faruk; Sener, Nevzat Can; Vuruskan, Ediz; Ortoglu, Ferhat; Gurbuz, Zafer Gokhan.
Afiliación
  • Ercil H; Ministry of Health, Department of Urology, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
  • Altunkol A; Ministry of Health, Department of Urology, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey. Electronic address: ademaltunkol@hotmail.com.
  • Kuyucu F; Ministry of Health, Department of Urology, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
  • Sener NC; Ministry of Health, Department of Urology, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
  • Vuruskan E; Ministry of Health, Department of Urology, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
  • Ortoglu F; Ministry of Health, Department of Urology, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
  • Gurbuz ZG; Ministry of Health, Department of Urology, Adana Numune Training and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
Asian J Surg ; 38(2): 91-5, 2015 Apr.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25059816
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

This study was conducted to evaluate clinical experience and learning curve associated with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy performed for upper ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

The medical data of 50 patients who had undergone retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy between June 2010 and March 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. To assess the learning curve, patients were divided into two groups Group A (the first 25 cases) and Group B (the last 25 cases). In Group A, double J stents were placed in 17 patients, whereas in Group B 15 patients received double J stents. In Group A, three ports were placed in nine patients and four ports in 16 patients. In Group B, three ports were placed in 20 patients and five patients had four ports. The patients were compared according to demographics, operative time, stone size, complications, hospital stay, and transfusion.

RESULTS:

The mean age for Group A was 47.8 ± 14.13 (21-72) years and that for Group B was 44.2 ± 14.98 (22-78) years. Mean operative times were 106.4 ± 38 (55-210) minutes and 70.76 ± 30.4 (30-180) minutes for Groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean hospital stay was 7.12 ± 4.47 (3-22) days and 4.04 ± 2.05 (2-12) days for Groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.05). The mean stone size was 20.12 ± 5.18 (12-30) mm and 19.44 ± 4.44 (13-28) mm for Groups A and B, respectively (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

In our study, as staff experience (in performing laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy) increased, operative time, length of hospital stay, and complication rates have correspondingly declined.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Urológicos / Cálculos Ureterales / Laparoscopía / Curva de Aprendizaje Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Asian J Surg Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Turquía

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Urológicos / Cálculos Ureterales / Laparoscopía / Curva de Aprendizaje Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Asian J Surg Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Turquía