title: Experiences in laparoscopic removal of upper ureteral stones: multicenter analysis of cases, based on the TurkUroLap Group.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Laparoscopic surgery for ureteral stones was restricted to special cases-those with large or impacted ureteral stones. We present special cases of patients who underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy at various clinics in Turkey.
  
  
  METHODS
  Forty-one patients were included in the study from five urology clinics in which laparoscopic surgery was being performed. After a disease-specific history and physical examination, age and sex were recorded. The mean patient age was 41.8 years (30 men and 11 women). Urinalysis, determination of creatinine level, intravenous urography, and ultrasonography were performed. The parameters of stone size, presence of hydronephrosis, previous shockwave lithotripsy, previous ureteroscopic stone therapy, type of laparoscopic approach, operative time, ureteral incision, insertion of a Double-J stent, amount of drainage, hospitalization period, and perioperative complications were evaluated.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mean ureteral stone size was 22 mm. The retroperitoneoscopic approach was preferred in 35 (85.3%) patients, while the transperitoneal approach was used in 6 (14.7%) patients. Grade I hydronephrosis was detected in 4 patients, grade 2 in 22 patients, and grade 3 in 12 patients. In six patients, a history of shockwave lithotripsy was confirmed. The ureteral wall was incised with a cold knife in 5, scissors in 16, J-hook in 3, and a monopolar or bipolar dissector in 17 patients. In six patients, a Double-J stent was inserted, while in one patient, the operation was converted to an open procedure. The mean operative time was 124 minutes. The mean amount of drainage was 220 ml. Mean hospitalization time was 4.8 days. In five (12.5%) of seven patients, persistent drainage was a major complication that was managed by insertion of a Double-J stent. All patients were discharged stone free.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Increased hospitalization and operative time can be related to the large stone sizes and prolonged urine leakage. In our opinion, however, the overall success of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy makes it a feasible and effective procedure, especially for stones that could not be managed easily with ureteroscopic stone therapy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Second Urology Clinic, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. dremrehuri@yahoo.com
authors.forename: Emre
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Huri
authors.forename: Erem Kaan
authors.initials: EK
authors.lastname: Basok
authors.forename: Ozgür
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Uğurlu
authors.forename: Cenk
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Gurbuz
authors.forename: Turgay
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Akgül
authors.forename: Yaşar
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Ozgök
authors.forename: Selahattin
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Bedir
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006869:Hydronephrosis / Q000150:complications; D010535:Laparoscopy; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D014421:Turkey; D014514:Ureteral Calculi / Q000150:complications / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*