Download PDF
Eur J Pediatr Surg 2017; 27(02): 150-154
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1572551
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy in Children: With and Without Stent — Initial Tertiary Care Center Experience with More Than 1-Year Follow-Up

Alok Srivastava
1   Department of Urology and Renal Transplant, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
,
Ishwar Ram Dhayal
1   Department of Urology and Renal Transplant, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
*   The authors Ishwar Ram Dhayal and Priyanka Rai contributed equally to the article.
,
Priyanka Rai
2   Department of Surgery, Baba Raghav Das Medical College Ringgold Standard Institution, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
*   The authors Ishwar Ram Dhayal and Priyanka Rai contributed equally to the article.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

11 August 2015

15 January 2016

Publication Date:
15 February 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background The purpose of our study was to assess the safety and feasibility of transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) in children with ureteric stones with and without a stent.

Method Impacted ureteric stone of size ≥ 1.5 cm or ureteric stones that were refractory to shock wave lithotripsy (SWL)/ureteroscopy (URS) were considered for LU. From December 2009 to April 2012, 50 cases of LU were performed with a stent being placed. From May 2012 onward we now perform stentless LU and till now we have done approximately 64 such type of cases. Out of these, 48 have completed more than 1 year of follow-up and we took these as our study group and the previous 50 (LU with stent) as our control group. Baseline characteristics along with certain per- and postoperative findings of the two groups were noted and analyzed. Ultrasonography and X-ray kidney, ureter, and bladder region were done at 3, 9 months, 1 year, and yearly thereafter. Intravenous urography was done at 6 months statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS ver. 21 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, United States). The data were analyzed by using the Mann–Whitney test and a p value of < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results The baseline characteristics were similar in both the groups with 100% stone clearance in all. LU with stent differed from the stentless group in terms of more requirement of analgesics and the need for a second procedure for stent removal, but with no cases of urine leak in the postoperative period.

Conclusion LU in children is a safe and viable option, especially for impacted stones or as a salvage procedure for ureteric stones when SWL or transureteral lithotripsy has failed.

Keywords

children - stent - laparoscopic ureterolithotomy
 

  • References

  • 1 Sarica K. Pediatric urolithiasis: etiology, specific pathogenesis and medical treatment. Urol Res 2006; 34 (2) 96-101
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kroovand RL. Pediatric urolithiasis. Urol Clin North Am 1997; 24 (1) 173-184
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Rizvi SA, Sultan S, Ijaz H , et al. Open surgical management of pediatric urolithiasis: A developing country perspective. Indian J Urol 2010; 26 (4) 573-576
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Rizvi SA, Naqvi SA, Hussain Z , et al. Management of pediatric urolithiasis in Pakistan: experience with 1,440 children. J Urol 2003; 169 (2) 634-637
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 da Cunha Lima JP, Duarte RJ, Cristofani LM, Srougi M. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children: Results and short-term complications. Int J Urol 2007; 14 (8) 684-688
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Basiri A, Zare S, Shakhssalim N, Hosseini Moghaddam SM. Ureteral calculi in children: what is best as a minimally invasive modality?. Urol J 2008; 5 (2) 67-73
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Wadhwa P, Aron M, Seth A, Dogra PN, Hemal AK, Gupta NP. Pediatric shockwave lithotripsy: size matters!. J Endourol 2007; 21 (2) 141-144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Aldridge RD, Aldridge RC, Aldridge LM. Anesthesia for pediatric lithotripsy. Paediatr Anaesth 2006; 16 (3) 236-241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Aksoy Y, Özbey I, Atmaca AF, Polat O. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children: experience using a mpl-9000 lithotriptor. World J Urol 2004; 22 (2) 115-119
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Picramenos D, Deliveliotis C, Alexopoulou K, Makrichoritis C, Kostakopoulos A, Dimopoulos C. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones in children. Urol Int 1996; 56 (2) 86-89
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Turunc T, Kuzgunbay B, Gul U , et al. Factors affecting the success of ureteroscopy in management of ureteral stone diseases in children. J Endourol 2010; 24 (8) 1273-1277
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Hill DE, Segura JW, Patterson DE, Kramer SA. Ureteroscopy in children. J Urol 1990; 144 (2 Pt 2): 481-483 , discussion 492–493
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Thomas R, Ortenberg J, Lee BR, Harmon EP. Safety and efficacy of pediatric ureteroscopy for management of calculous disease. J Urol 1993; 149 (5) 1082-1084
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Zargooshi J. Open stone surgery in children: is it justified in the era of minimally invasive therapies?. BJU Int 2001; 88 (9) 928-931
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Fragoso AC, Valla JS, Steyaert H, Arnaud P, Esposito C, Estevão-Costa J. Minimal access surgery in the management of pediatric urolithiasis. J Pediatr Urol 2009; 5 (1) 42-46
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Ko YH, Kang SG, Park JY , et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy as a primary modality for large proximal ureteral calculi: comparison to rigid ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2011; 21 (1) 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Lopes Neto AC, Korkes F, Silva II JL , et al. Prospective randomized study of treatment of large proximal ureteral stones: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterolithotripsy versus laparoscopy. J Urol 2012; 187 (1) 164-168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Agrawal V, Bajaj J, Acharya H, Chanchalani R, Raina VK, Sharma D. Laparoscopic management of pediatric renal and ureteric stones. J Pediatr Urol 2013; 9 (2) 230-233
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Gaur DD, Trivedi S, Prabhudesai MR, Madhusudhana HR, Gopichand M. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: technical considerations and long-term follow-up. BJU Int 2002; 89 (4) 339-343
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Demirci D, Gülmez I, Ekmekçioğlu O, Karacagil M. Retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy for the treatment of ureteral calculi. Urol Int 2004; 73 (3) 234-237
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Hammady H, Gamal W, Zaki M, Hussein M, Abuzaeid A. Evaluation of ureteral stent placement after retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for upper ureteral stone: randomized controlled study. J Endourol 2011; 25 (5) 825-830
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Abolyosr A. Laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy for recurrent lower-ureteral stones previously treated with open ureterolithotomy: initial experience in 11 cases. J Endourol 2007; 21 (5) 525-529
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Lee RS, Passerotti CC, Cendron M, Estrada CR, Borer JG, Peters CA. Early results of robot assisted laparoscopic lithotomy in adolescents. J Urol 2007; 177 (6) 2306-2309 , discussion 2309–2310
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar