Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
  • Register
  • Login

Urology Journal

  • Home
  • Instant Online
    • Instant 2026
    • Instant 2023
    • Instant 2021
    • Instant 2020
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Announcements
  • Submissions
  • Author Guidelines
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 18 No. 01 (2021): January-February 2021
  4. REVIEW

Vol. 18 No. 01 (2021)

March 2021

Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Approach of Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Large (>10mm) and Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • Hualin Chen
  • Gang Chen
  • Han Chen
  • Yang Pan
  • Yunxiao Zhu
  • Fei Gao
  • Xiaoxiang Jin

Urology Journal, Vol. 18 No. 01 (2021), 17 March 2021 , Page 11-18
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i01.5588 Published: 2020-07-30

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • References
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Purpose: We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy between laparoscopic transperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LTU) and laparoscopic retroperitoneal ureterolithotomy (LRU) in the treatment of large (>10mm) and proximal ureteral stones.
Materials and Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched through December 2019. Comparative studies comparing the two approaches were included. The primary outcome was a single-procedure success rate; the secondary outcomes included operative time, hospital duration, and complications (according to the Clavien-Dindo Grade). Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) and the modified Jadad scale were used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The Egger's test estimated publication bias. The meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 15.0.
Results: Seven studies, involving 125 participants in LTU group and 128 in LRU group, were included in the study. The results suggested that both single-procedure success rate and the rate of postoperative paralytic ileus were significantly higher in the LTU group than in the LRU group (95.2% vs 87.5%, 95% CI: .00-.16, RD = .08, P = .04; 10.4% vs 0, 95% CI: .02- .19, RD = .10, P = .02, respectively). No publication bias of the primary outcome was observed with the Egger’s test (P = .117). No significant differences were noted in terms of operative time and hospital duration (95% CI: -18.95-8.80, MD = -5.08, P = .47; 95% CI: -.98- .58, MD = -.20, P = .61, respectively). Additionally, according to Clavien-Dindo Grade, the rates of major complications (>= Grade 3a) including open conversion (.8% vs 5.5%, 95%CI: -.11- .01, RD = -.05, P = .12), stone migration (8.1% vs 6.7%, 95% CI: -.08- .11, RD = .02, P = .76), vascular injury (5.4% vs 0, 95%CI: -.03- .14, RD = .05, P = .21) and ureteral stricture (1.3% vs 5.3%, 95% CI: -.11- .02, RD = -.04, P = .20), were comparable between the two groups.
Conclusion: In the treatment of large and proximal ureteral calculi, LTU has a significantly higher single-procedure success rate and a higher rate of postoperative paralytic ileus than LRU. However, the complication was well-tolerated. The small sample size and limited, including studies, were the main limitations.
Keywords:
  • laparoscopy
  • meta-analysis
  • retroperitoneal
  • transperitoneal
  • ureteral calculus
  • ureterolithotomy
  • 5588/pdf

How to Cite

Chen, H., Chen, G., Chen, H., Pan, Y., Zhu, Y., Gao, F., & Jin, X. (2020). Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Approach of Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for the Treatment of Large (>10mm) and Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Urology Journal, 18(01), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i01.5588
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX

References

Zumstein V, Betschart P, Abt D, Schmid HP, Panje CM, Putora PM. Surgical management of urolithiasis - a systematic analysis of available guidelines. BMC Urology. 2018;18:25.

Research H-GTJU. Removal of ureteral stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic procedures. What can we learn from the literature in terms of results and treatment efforts? Urological Research. 2005;33:185-90.

Stewart GD, Bariol SV, Moussa SA, Smith G, ., Tolley DA, %J International Journal of Clinical Practice. Matched pair analysis of ureteroscopy vs. shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of upper ureteric calculi. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 2010;61:784-8.

Drake T, Grivas N, Dabestani S, et al. What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review. European Urology Supplements. 2017;72:772.

Torricelli FCM, Monga M, Marchini GS, Srougi M, Nahas WC, Mazzucchi EJIBJoUOJotBSoU. Semi-rigid ureteroscopic

lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large upper ureteral stones: a meta – analysis of randomized controlled trials. International braz j urol. 2016;42:645-54.

El-Moula MG, Abdallah A, El-Anany F, et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: Our experience with 74 cases. International Journal of Urology. 2010;15:593-7.

Dindo D. The Clavien–Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Annals of Surgery. 2009;250:187.

Abat D, Altunkol A, Kuyucu F, Demirci DA, Vuruskan E, Bayazit YJJtJotPMA. After a urological laparoscopic training programme, which laparoscopic method is safer and more feasible in the management of proximal ureteral stones: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal? Jpma the Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association. 2016;66:971.

Vishwajeet S, Rahul Janak S, Dheeraj Kumar G, Manoj K, Asif AJJoU. Transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a prospective randomized comparison study. The Journal of Urology. 2013;189:940-5.

Almeida GL, Heldwein FL, Graziotin TM, Schmitt CS, Cláudio TKJAUE. Prospective trial comparing laparoscopy and open surgery for management of impacted ureteral stones. Actas Urológicas Españolas. 2009;33:1108-14.

Chiu HC, Chang CH, Wu HC, Huang CPJEUS. 982 The comparison of peritoneal, retro-peritoneal and transperitoneal robotic assisted laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stone. European Urology Supplements. 2015;14:e982-ea.

Khalil M, Omar R, Abdel-Baky S, Mohey A, Sebaey AJTJU. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; which is better: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach? Turk J Urol. 2015;41:185-90.

Pierluigi B, Salvatore M, Roberto M, et al. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: a comparison between the transperitoneal and the retroperitoneal approach during the learning curve. Journal of Endourology. 2009;23:953-7.

Wisoot K, Sahachart A, Kittinut K, Suthep P, Suchart CJJotMAoTCt. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in selected patients. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet. 2010;93:794-8.

Wu T, Duan X, Chen S, Yang X, Tang T, Cui SJUI. Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy or Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Urologia Internationalis. 2017.

Khalil M, Omar R, Abdel-Baky S, Mohey A, Sebaey AJTJU. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; which is better: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach? Journal of Urology. 2015;41:185-90.

Khalil M, Omar R, Abdel-Baky S, Mohey A, Sebaey A. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy; which is better: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach? Turk J Urol. 2015;41:185-90.

  • Abstract Viewed: 419 times
  • 5588/pdf Downloaded: 348 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

Information

  • For Readers
  • For Authors

Developed By

Open Journal Systems
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact
Powered by OJSPlus