title: Comparison of laparoscopic and open ureterolithotomy in impacted and very large ureteral stones.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic and open ureterolithotomy in patients with ureteral stones.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients who had undergone open or laparoscopic ureterolithotomy between 2001 and 2013 in our clinic were enrolled in the study.Ureterolithotomy was performed due to the following reasons: failure to position the patient for ureteroscopy, unreachable stone with ureteroscopy also use of balloon dilatation, high stone volume, and the need for removal of kidney stones at the same session.. The patients' demographic data, the volume of the stones, the duration of the operation and the hospital stay, the amount of analgesics administered after the operation, and the need for another procedure were compared.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of study subjects 32 patients had undergone open and 20 patients had undergone laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. When the two groups were compared, there was no statistically significant difference with regard to the mean age (44.5-44 years), the body mass index (26-24.7 kg/m²), the stone volume (420-580 mm³), the duration of operation (122-123 min), the need for another procedure and complications. The mean amount of analgesics administered after the operation (3.6 and 1.81 doses, P = .02) and the mean hospital stay (6.1 and 2.9 days, P = .01) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic ureterolithotomy group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy is a good alternative with less need for analgesia and a shorter hospital stay when compared with open ureterolithotomy.
authors.affiliation: Departments of Urology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. goxelle@yahoo.com.
authors.forename: Goksel
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Bayar
authors.affiliation: Departments of Urology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Orhan
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Tanriverdi
authors.affiliation: Departments of Urology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Mehmet
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Taskiran
authors.affiliation: Departments of Urology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Umut
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Sariogullari
authors.affiliation: Departments of Urology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Hüseyin
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Acinikli
authors.affiliation: Departments of Urology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Elshad
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Abdullayev
authors.affiliation: Departments of Urology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Kaya
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Horasanli
authors.affiliation: Departments of Urology, Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Cengiz
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Miroglu
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy; D008297:Male; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014514:Ureteral Calculi / Q000150:complications / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods