title: [Laparoscopic treatment of ureterolithiasis: our experience].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Analyze technical details and results of laparoscopic treatment of ureterolithiasis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between January 2005 and August 2008 it was performed laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in 22 patients in our service. Two (9%) by retroperitoneal access and 20 (91%) by transperitoneal access. Mean size of the calculi was 15 mm. with a variation from 8 mm to 23 mm. The calculus were in the upper tract in 18 patients (81.8%) and in mid ureter in 4 patients (18.2), any of the calculus were in lower ureter. Most of calculi were obstructive stones for more than 2 months. Eight patients were submited a previous section of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and 2 by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy plus ureterolithotripsy as a calculi treatment attempt. Twelve patients had a laparoscopic ureterolithotomy as a primary indication for treatment.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy was successful for 20 patients (90.9%), and the fails occurred in the beginning of our experiment. Mean operative time was 145 minutes with range from 70 to 240 minutes. The indwelling ureteral stent was used in 03 cases; 02 preoperative, and 01 postoperative. The ureteral suture was performed with absorbable 4.0 separated stitches in all patients. The global average of permanence in hospital was 3.3 days and the drain permanence was 7.2 days. The global complication rate was 13,6%. The global rate of stone free was 91%, and there were residual stone in 2 patients.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The laparoscopic treatment of ureterolithiasis besides minimally invasive, it is viable, secure and very effective. It should have taken into consideration as a procedure to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy. But, in cases where there are obstructive stones for a long time, in selected patients and, in special, in patients with just one kidney, it can be considered as a first line treatment. About the access, if retroperitoneal or transperitoneal; it is not still possible to affirm which would be the best one, the option must take into account the surgeon preference and experience.
authors.affiliation: Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitario São José, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil. danilomatiass@gmail.com
authors.forename: Danilo Borges
authors.initials: DB
authors.lastname: Matias
authors.forename: Ricardo Gonçalves
authors.initials: RG
authors.lastname: Alvim
authors.forename: Mateus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Ribas
authors.forename: Bruno Pierote
authors.initials: BP
authors.lastname: de Oliveira
authors.forename: Otto H Torres
authors.initials: OH
authors.lastname: Chaves
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy; D008297:Male; D053039:Ureterolithiasis / Q000601:surgery*; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods; D055815:Young Adult