Comparative evaluation of surgical methods for low invasive surgical treatment of diseases of the kidneys and urinary tract
https://doi.org/10.29413/ABS.2021-6.5.22
Abstract
Background. The rapid development of laparoscopic surgery can significantly reduce trauma during operations in the retroperitoneal space. These goals are also achieved by retroperitoneoscopy (RPS), which has become widespread in the last twenty years. The main difficulties for surgeons were associated with a small workspace and a lack of clear anatomical landmarks. Different access methods have different features, advantages and disadvantages, the analysis of which helps to optimize surgical treatment and accelerate patient rehabilitation.
Aim: to study the advantages and disadvantages of retroperitoneoscopic and transperitoneal laparoscopic surgical methods of treatment.
Materials and methods: We analyzed 305 case histories of patients operated on for various kidney diseases. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 – patients who underwent surgery using an extraperitoneal retroperitoneoscopic approach, Group 2 – patients who used the transperitoneal laparoscopic approach. A comparison of two methods of surgical treatment of kidney diseases, retroperitoneoscopic and laparoscopic access, was carried out. The following indicators were compared: duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, need for analgesics, frequency of postoperative complications.
Results. The duration of the operation with retroperitoneoscopic surgery was reduced by more than 15 % compared with the laparoscopic approach. Shorter periods of pain relief were required, and the number of complications also decreased. The duration of inpatient treatment did not differ significantly.
Conclusion. Retroperitoneoscopic approach can be used as the method of choice for operations on the retroperitoneal space.
About the Authors
O. A. Ushakova
City Clinical Hospital No. 1
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Resident Physician at the Urological Department,
Lenina str. 8, Chita 672039
M. V. Suturin
City Clinical Hospital No. 1
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Resident Physician at the Urological Department,
Lenina str. 8, Chita 672039
Yu. S. Lobanov
Chita State Medical Academy
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sc. (Med.), Associate Professor of the Department of Faculty Surgery with a Course of Urology,
Gorkogo str. 39A, Chita 672000
A. V. Efimov
Regional Clinical Hospital of Chita
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Resident Physician at the Urology Department,
Kokhanskogo str. 7, Chita 672038
G. I. Vilsky
Regional Clinical Hospital of Chita
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Resident Physician at the Urological Department,
Kokhanskogo str. 7, Chita 672038
References
1. Antonov AV. Extraperitoneal endovascular surgery access to the organs of the retroperitoneal space. Urologicheskie Vedomosti. 2012; 2(3): 35-41. (In Russ.).
2. Vrublevsky SG, Imanaliyeva AA, Shmyrov OS, Manzhos PI, Vrublevskaya EN. Prospects and possibilities of endovascular surgery of the retroperitoneal space. Russian Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2016; 20(1): 34-40. (In Russ.). doi: 10.18821/1560-9510-2016-20-1-34-40
3. Perlin DV. Simultaneous retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy with cholecystectomy. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2016; 18(3): 102-106. (In Russ.). doi: 10.15825/1995-1191-2016-3-102-106
4. Kadyrov ZA. Our experience in the use of retroperitoneoscopy in the treatment of patients with purulent-inflammatory diseases of the kidneys and retroperitoneal space. Healthcare of Tajikistan. 2017; 1(332): 33-38. (In Russ.).
5. Lobanov YuS, Efimov AV, Lobanov SL, Shapovalov KG. Influence of pneumoretroperitoneum on intra-abdominal pressure during operations in the retroperitoneal space. The Transbaikalian Medical Bulletin. 2018; (2): 32-35. (In Russ.).
6. Lobanov YuS, Lobanov SL, Shapovalov KG. Changes in microcirculation in intra-abdominal hypertension in surgery. Novosti Khirurgii. 2018; (4): 465-472. (In Russ.). doi: 10.18484/2305-0047.2018.4.465
7. De Crea C, Raffaelli M, D’Amato G, Princi P, Gallucci P, Bellantone R, et al. Retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy: Tips and tricks. Updates Surg. 2017; 69(2): 267-270. doi: 10.1007/s13304-017-0469-1
8. Dinckan A, Dinc B, Turkyilmaz S, Tekin A, Kocak H, Akbas H, et al. Comparison of open and retroperitoneoscopic donor nephrectomy in terms of lipid and protein peroxidation responses. Transplant Proc. 2013; 45(9): 3214-3219. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.06.018
9. Freitas B, Figueiredo R, Carrerette F, Acioly MA. Retroperitoneoscopic resection of a lumbosacral plexus schwannoma: Case report and literature review. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2018; 79(3): 262-267. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1608814
10. Lombardo R, Martos R, Ribal MJ, Alcaraz A, Tubaro A, De Nunzio C. Retroperitoneoscopy in urology: A systematic review. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019; 71(1): 9-16. doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03235-6
11. MacDonald C, Small R, Flett M, Cascio S, O’Toole S. Predictors of complications following retroperitoneoscopic total and partial nephrectomy. J Pediatr Surg. 2019; 54(2): 331-334. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.10.097
12. Rassweiler J, Klein J, Goezen AS. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic non-dismembered pyeloplasty for uretero-pelvic obstruction due to crossing vessels: A matched-paired analysis and review of the literature. Asian J Urol. 2018; 5(3): 172-181. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.03.001
Review
For citations:
Ushakova O.A., Suturin M.V., Lobanov Yu.S., Efimov A.V., Vilsky G.I. Comparative evaluation of surgical methods for low invasive surgical treatment of diseases of the kidneys and urinary tract. Acta Biomedica Scientifica. 2021;6(5):230-236. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.29413/ABS.2021-6.5.22
Views:
829
.png)
Email this article 
