title: After a urological laparoscopic training programme, which laparoscopic method is safer and more feasible in the management of proximal ureteral stones: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the results of the management of the first 25 transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomies with the first 25 retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomies performed by two surgeons who had just completed a laparoscopic training programme.
  
  
  METHODS
  The retrospective study was conducted at Adana Numune Teaching and Research Hospital and comprised retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomies and transperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomies performed by two different surgeons on patients with proximal ureteral stones between November 2011 and March 2013. The transperitoneal and retroperitoneal procedures were categorised as Groups A and B, respectively. Patients in Group A were operated on by the same surgeon (DA) and those in Group B were operated on by the other surgeon (FK). Groups were compared according to operative time, duration of drainage and urethral catheter, hospital stay, stone size, surgical success and complications.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were 50 patients in the study; 25(50%) in each of the two groups. Success rates in Group A and B were 21(84%) and 20(80%), respectively (p>0.05). Complications were seen in 8(32%) and 11(44%) patients in Group A and B, respectively (p>0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The transperitoneal approach was more advantageous than the retroperitoneal approach for less-experienced surgeons because it provided a wider operating field, a more familiar anatomy and more convenient suturing.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Ministry of Health, Adana Numune Teaching and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
authors.forename: Deniz
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Abat
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Ministry of Health, Adana Numune Teaching and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
authors.forename: Adem
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Altunkol
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Ministry of Health, Adana Numune Teaching and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
authors.forename: Faruk
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Kuyucu
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Ministry of Health, Adana Numune Teaching and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
authors.forename: Durmus Alparslan
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Demirci
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Ministry of Health, Adana Numune Teaching and Research Hospital, Adana, Turkey.
authors.forename: Ediz
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Vuruskan
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey.
authors.forename: Yildirim
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Bayazit
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D019468:Disease Management; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000193:education* / Q000379:methods; D007902:Length of Stay; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D061646:Operative Time; D010537:Peritoneum; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D012187:Retroperitoneal Space; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014513:Ureter / Q000601:surgery*; D014514:Ureteral Calculi / Q000601:surgery*; D013520:Urologic Surgical Procedures / Q000379:methods*; D014572:Urology / Q000193:education*; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy, Laparoscopy, Ureteral stone.