Efficiency of Laparoscopic Treatment of the Stricture of the Bowl-ureter Segment in Combination with Urolithiasis
Keywords:stricture of the bowl-ureter segment, urolithiasis, laparoscopic bowl-ureter segment plastic, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy
Stricture of the bowl-ureter segment (BUS) is one of the common pathologies in urology. Quite often in urological practice narrowing of BUS is accompanied by urolithiasis. In adults, according to various authors, the combination of these two serious pathologies occurs in 16-25 % of observations. For a long period, reconstructive-plastic surgery on BUS was a category of complex surgical interventions, required long-term intubation anesthesia, accompanied by a wide opening of the retroperitoneal space with careful allocation of the BUS area. Patients were in the hospital for a long time. Progress in the development of endoscopic equipment has contributed to the active introduction into clinical practice of minimally invasive techniques. Today, an increasing number of urologists are favoring different methods of laparoscopic plastics of BUS structures. But, both in the domestic and in the foreign literature, there are few works that would present advantages, complications, disadvantages of laparoscopic BUS plastic in combination with laparoscopic pyelolithotomy in patients with BUS complicated. This paper presents an analysis of our treatment of patients with BUS strictures in combination with urolithiasis.
The objective: analysis and evaluation of the effectiveness of laparoscopic MCC plastics in combination with laparoscopic pyelolithotomy in patients with MCC obstruction complicated by SCC.
Materials and methods. For the period from 2013 to 2019 41 patients with the above pathology were laparoscopically operated in the clinic of theInstitute ofUrology of the National Academy of Medical Sciences ofUkraine, including 25 men and 16 women. Their age ranged from 18 to 66 years. The length of the strictures – from 0.3 to1 cm. The size of the concretions varied from 0.5 to1.5 cm. One patient was found to be a coral stone of8.6 cm in size. There were no complications. The average length of stay in the hospital was 5.4 days.
Results. In the distant postoperative period, there was no recurrence of BUS stricture and stone formation, stabilization or improvement of the secretory function of the kidney on the side of the plastic was noted. The effectiveness of our use of this method was 90.2 %, which allows us to consider it as the «gold» standard in the treatment of the above pathology.Conclusion. The use of laparoscopic plastics in combination with laparoscopic pyelolithotomy has made it possible to achieve good clinical results both in the immediate and long-term postoperative period. Timely surgery allowed us to achieve positive results in all patients with hydronephrotic transformation due to BUS stricture and complicated urolithiasis.
Глыбочко П.В., Аляев Ю.Г. (2011). Гидронефроз. М.
Kausik S., Segura J.W. (2003) Surgical management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults. International Braz J Urol Official Journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 29(1):3–10.
Nishi M., Matsumoto K., Fujita T., Iwamura M. (2016) Improvement in Renal Function and Symptoms of Patients Treated with Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction with Less than 20% Split Renal Function. Department of Urology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Kanagawa, Japan. J Endourol. Oct 14.
Van Cangh P.J., Nesa S., Tombal B. (2001). The role of endourology in ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Current Urology Reports 2:149–153.
Kim S.C., Kuo R.L., Lingeman J.E. (2003). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update. Curr. Opin. Urol. 13:235–241.
Комяков Б.К., Гулиев Б.Г., Алиев Р.В. (2013). Лапароскопическая пластика при первичных сужениях пиелоуретерального сегмента. Урология. 6:81–84.
Chiancone F., Fedelini M., Pucci L., Meccariello C., Fedelini P. (2017). Laparoscopic management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction following pyeloplasty: a single surgical team experience with 38 cases. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 43(3):512–517.
Juliano R.V., Mendonça R.R., Meyer F., Rubinstein M., Lasmar M.T., Korkes F., Tavares A., Pompeo A.C., Tobias-Machado M. (2011). Long-term outcome of laparoscopic pyeloplasty: multicentric comparative study of techniques and accesses. J. Laparoendosc Adv .Surg .Tech. A. 21(5):399–403.
Abdel-Karim A.M., Fahmy A.,Moussa A.,Rashad H., Elbadry M., Badawy H.,Hammady A. (2016). Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Pediatr Urol. pii: S1477-5131(16) 30186–3.
Цариченко Д.Г., Шполь Ю.Г., Рапопорт Л.М., Еникеев М.Э., Еникеев Д.В. (2017). Лапароскопическая пиелолитотомия и её роль в современной хирургии нефролитиаза. Урология, 4:12–17.
Chen W.N., Ye X.J., Liu S.J., Xiong L.L., Huang X.B., Xu T., Wang X.F. (2014). Comparison of three surgical methods of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in therapeutic effect and complication. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 48(5):817–821.
Мартов А.Г., Ергаков Д.В., Андронов А.С., Дутов С.В. ( 2014). Малоинвазивное лечение стриктур верхних мочевых путей. Хирургия. 12:46–55.
Bansal R., Ansari M.S., Srivastava A., Kapoor R. (2012). Long-term results of pyeloplasty in poorly functioning kidneys in the pediatric age group. J Pediatr Urol. 8:25–28.
Autorino R., Eden C., El-Ghoneimi A. (2014). Robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Eur. Urol. 65:430–452.
Guliev B.G., Aliev R.V.(2016) Oslozhneniya laparoskopicheskoy pieloplastiki po klassifikatsii Klav’yena. Eksperimental’naya i klinicheskaya urologiya.2:47–51.
Copyright (c) 2020 М. Д. Соснін, В. А. Слободянюк, А. А. Грицаюк
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The journal does not require authors of original (primary) research papers to assign the copyright of their published contributions. Authors grant the journal an non-exclusive licence CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License) to using and the first publication of the original in this journal. Copyright of the manuscripts is retained by the authors, after publication authors retain rights to reuse their papers in their future printed work without first requiring permission from the publisher of the journal and share their own published articles.
The journal supports the self-archiving process. Prior to publication in the journal, authors may post a copy of their manuscript in preparation or submitted to the journal in recognized non-commercial preprint servers, public websites. Authors also are encouraged to archive their final author version of the manuscript in their institution's repositories and, if they wish, on their personal websites. Authors should cite the publication reference and DOI number on the first page of any deposited version, and provide a link from it to the URL of the published article on the journal's website.
To facilitate self-archiving of original research papers and help authors fulfil funder and institutional mandates, the journal deposits manuscripts in National Library of Ukraine by V.I. Vernadsky, Scientific periodicals of Ukraine database and different international scintificd database on behalf of authors who opt-in to this free service during submission. The journal provides depositing of articles on official website of the publisher. The full text access to published papers is free.