Parachute technique for partial penectomy.

PURPOSE: Penile carcinoma is a rare but mutilating malignancy. In this context, partial penectomy is the most commonly applied approach for best oncological results. We herein propose a simple modification of the classic technique of partial penectomy, for better cosmetic and functional results. TECHNIQUE: If partial penectomy is indicated, the present technique can bring additional benefits. Different from classical technique, the urethra is spatulated only ventrally. An inverted "V" skin flap with 0.5 cm of extension is sectioned ventrally. The suture is performed with vicryl 4-0 in a "parachute" fashion, beginning from the ventral portion of the urethra and the "V" flap, followed by the "V" flap angles and than by the dorsal portion of the penis. After completion of the suture, a Foley catheter and light dressing are placed for 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Several complex reconstructive techniques have been previously proposed, but normally require specific surgical abilities, adequate patient selection and staged procedures. We believe that these reconstructive techniques are very useful in some specific subsets of patients. However, the technique herein proposed is a simple alternative that can be applied to all men after a partial penectomy, and takes the same amount of time as that in the classic technique. In conclusion, the "parachute" technique for penile reconstruction after partial amputation not only improves the appearance of the penis, but also maintains an adequate function.

Parachute technique for partial penectomy

PURPOSE: Penile carcinoma is a rare but mutilating malignancy. In this context, partial penectomy is the most commonly applied approach for best oncological results. We herein propose a simple modification of the classic technique of partial penectomy, for better cosmetic and functional results. TECHNIQUE: If partial penectomy is indicated, the present technique can bring additional benefits. Different from classical technique, the urethra is spatulated only ventrally. An inverted "V" skin flap with 0.5 cm of extension is sectioned ventrally. The suture is performed with vicryl 4-0 in a "parachute" fashion, beginning from the ventral portion of the urethra and the "V" flap, followed by the "V" flap angles and than by the dorsal portion of the penis. After completion of the suture, a Foley catheter and light dressing are placed for 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Several complex reconstructive techniques have been previously proposed, but normally require specific surgical abilities, adequate patient selection and staged procedures. We believe that these reconstructive techniques are very useful in some specific subsets of patients. However, the technique herein proposed is a simple alternative that can be applied to all men after a partial penectomy, and takes the same amount of time as that in the classic technique. In conclusion, the "parachute" technique for penile reconstruction after partial amputation not only improves the appearance of the penis, but also maintains an adequate function.

Patient position and semi-rigid ureteroscopy outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Two positions have been reported for ureteroscopy (URS): dorsal lithotomy (DL) position and dorsal lithotomy position with same side leg slightly extended (DLEL). The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes associated with URS performed with patients in DL vs. DLEL position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 98 patients treated for ureteral calculi were randomized to either DL or DLEL position during URS, and were prospectively followed. Patients, stone characteristics and operative outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 98 patients included in the study, 56.1% were men and 43.9% women with a mean age of 42.6 +/- 16.8 years. Forty-eight patients underwent URS in DL position and 50 in DLEL position. Patients' age, mean stone size and location were similar between both groups. Operative time was longer for the DL vs. DLEL group (81.0 vs. 62.0 minutes, p = 0.045), mainly for men (95.2 vs. 63.9 minutes, p = 0.023). Mean fluoroscopy use, complications and success rates were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Most factors associated with operative outcomes during URS are inherent to patient's condition or devices available at each center, and therefore cannot be changed. However, leg position is a simple factor that can easily be changed, and directly affects operative time during URS. Even though success and complication rates are not related to position, placing the patient in dorsal lithotomy position with an extended leg seems to make the surgery easier and faster.

Patient position and semi-rigid ureteroscopy outcomes

Introduction: Two positions have been reported for ureteroscopy (URS): dorsal lithotomy (DL) position and dorsal lithotomy position with same side leg slightly extended (DLEL). The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes associated with URS performed with patients in DL vs. DLEL position. Material and Methods: A total of 98 patients treated for ureteral calculi were randomized to either DL or DLEL position during URS, and were prospectively followed. Patients, stone characteristics and operative outcomes were evaluated. Results: Of the 98 patients included in the study, 56.1 percent were men and 43.9 percent women with a mean age of 42.6 ± 16.8 years. Forty-eight patients underwent URS in DL position and 50 in DLEL position. Patients' age, mean stone size and location were similar between both groups. Operative time was longer for the DL vs. DLEL group (81.0 vs. 62.0 minutes, p = 0.045), mainly for men (95.2 vs. 63.9 minutes, p = 0.023). Mean fluoroscopy use, complications and success rates were similar between both groups. Conclusions: Most factors associated with operative outcomes during URS are inherent to patient's condition or devices available at each center, and therefore cannot be changed. However, leg position is a simple factor that can easily be changed, and directly affects operative time during URS. Even though success and complication rates are not related to position, placing the patient in dorsal lithotomy position with an extended leg seems to make the surgery easier and faster.

Video-assisted double-barreled wet colostomy: a new minimally invasive simultaneous diversion to patients after pelvic radiation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: A wet colostomy can be done when the simultaneous diversion of fecal and urine streams are necessary. Laparoscopic access is gaining space in urinary diversion procedures. The aim of the present study was to present the technique and results of the first case reported of a video-assisted double-barreled wet colostomy. PATIENT AND METHODS: In this article, we report a case of a 50-year-old woman with actinic complex urinary and fecal fistula, treated through a retroperitoneoscopic double-barreled wet colostomy. Only the left kidney had function, so she was treated by video endoscopic retroperitoneal dissection of the left ureter, preplanned transverse 5-cm incision for exteriorization of left colon and ureter, extracorporeal section of the left colon with a linear stapler, extracorporeal antireflux ureterocolonic anastomosis, and maturation of the stoma 10 cm proximal to the end of the proximal colonic loop. RESULTS: Operative time was 135 minutes. No transfusion was required nor had intraoperative complications occurred. Oral intake was initiated in postoperative day 2, and the patient was discharged postoperative day 6 without complications. Normal activities were recovered after 21 days. In a 3-month follow-up, there were no infectious complications, and good urinary drainage was observed. She was satisfied and adapted to the stoma. CONCLUSIONS: Video-assisted double-barreled wet colostomy is a feasible procedure. The same goals of the open procedure were achieved, offering the advantages of the laparoscopic approach.

Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been established regarding the best minimally invasive access for radical ablation of renal tumors. Our objective was to prospectively compare the surgical results and oncologic management of two currently used endoscopic techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a four-year period, 50 patients with renal tumors and clinical stage T1b-T2, smaller than 12 cm, underwent a radical nephrectomy at two reference institutions, 25 underwent retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RRN) and 25 a hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN). Mean follow-up of both cohorts was 50 months. Operative parameters and oncological management were compared. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 180 min in RRN and 108 min in HALRN (p < 0.001). The time required to access the renal pedicle in RRN was 30 min. and in HALRN 40 min., Learning curve was shorter in HALRN than RRN. Mean blood loss was 100 mL in RRN and 242 mL in HALRN. Mean incision size for specimen retrieval in RRN was 6.5 cm and in HALRN 7.5 cm. One patient with intra operative occurrence of ascites and subsequent pathological stage pT2N0M0 grade 3 operated via HALRN, had neoplasic implants in the Hand-port incision 3 months after surgery followed by death 4 months after recurrence. One patient, with pathological stage pT3N0M0 grade 3 in RRN had metastasis after 36 months. CONCLUSION: Both, RRN and HALRN techniques are accepted minimally invasive options for endoscopic radical nephrectomy with equivalent long term oncological outcome in the treatment of renal tumors.

Prospective comparative study between retroperitoneoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic approach for radical nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: No consensus has yet been established regarding the best minimally invasive access for radical ablation of renal tumors. Our objective was to prospectively compare the surgical results and oncologic management of two currently used endoscopic techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Over a four-year period, 50 patients with renal tumors and clinical stage T1b-T2, smaller than 12 cm, underwent a radical nephrectomy at two reference institutions, 25 underwent retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy (RRN) and 25 a hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (HALRN). Mean follow-up of both cohorts was 50 months. Operative parameters and oncological management were compared. RESULTS: The mean operative time was 180 min in RRN and 108 min in HALRN (p < 0.001). The time required to access the renal pedicle in RRN was 30 min. and in HALRN 40 min., Learning curve was shorter in HALRN than RRN. Mean blood loss was 100 mL in RRN and 242 mL in HALRN. Mean incision size for specimen retrieval in RRN was 6.5 cm and in HALRN 7.5 cm. One patient with intra operative occurrence of ascites and subsequent pathological stage pT2N0M0 grade 3 operated via HALRN, had neoplasic implants in the Hand-port incision 3 months after surgery followed by death 4 months after recurrence. One patient, with pathological stage pT3N0M0 grade 3 in RRN had metastasis after 36 months. CONCLUSION: Both, RRN and HALRN techniques are accepted minimally invasive options for endoscopic radical nephrectomy with equivalent long term oncological outcome in the treatment of renal tumors.

Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL): initial case report and comparison with open radical procedure.

OBJECTIVES: Inguinal metastases are one of the major determinants of mortality in patients with penile cancer. In high risk patients, while prophylatic inguinal lymphadenectomy may offer survival advantages, it still carries a relatively high morbidity. We describe in this paper the first report of the Video Endoscopic Inguinal Lymphadenectomy (VEIL) in the clinical practice, a technique which aims at reducing the morbidity of the procedure without compromising the cancer control or reducing the template of the dissection. METHODS: A 40 year old male with a pT2 penile cancer underwent prophylatic bilateral inguinal lymphadenectomy 6 weeks after partial penectomy. We performed the VEIL technique at the right and a standard radical inguinal lymphadenectomy through an inguinal incision at the left (control). After developing a plane deep to Scarpa's fascia, locating 3 ports and infusing gas at 5-10 mmHg, a retrograde dissection with the same limits as the standard open surgery was performed. Intraoperative data, patology, post operatory evolution and oncological follow-up is described for both sides. RESULTS: Operative time was 130 min for the VEIL and 90 min for open surgery. Eight and 7 lymphnodes were retrieved at the VEIL side and open side, respectively, and none of then showed positivity at pathology. There were no complications in the limb which underwent the VEIL and there was skin necrosis in the side of the open surgery. After 25 months of follow up, no signs of disease progression were noted. Asked about how he felt about both surgeries, the patient chose the endoscopic approach. CONCLUSION: VEIL is feasible in clinical practice. New studies with a greater number of patients and long-term follow-up may confirm the oncological efficacy and possible lower morbidity of these new approach.

Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL): minimally invasive resection of inguinal lymph nodes.

OBJECTIVES: Describe and illustrate a new minimally invasive approach for the radical resection of inguinal lymph nodes. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: From the experience acquired in 7 operated cases, the video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) technique was standardized in the following surgical steps: 1) Positioning of the inferior member extended in abduction, 2) Introduction of 3 work ports distal to the femoral triangle, 3) Expansion of the working space with gas, 4) Retrograde separation of the skin flap with a harmonic scalpel, 5) Identification and dissection of the long saphenous vein until the oval fossa, 6) Identification of the femoral artery, 7) Distal ligature of the lymph node block at the femoral triangle vertex, 8) Liberation of the lymph node tissue up to the great vessels above the femoral floor, 9) Distal ligature of the long saphenous vein, 10) Control of the saphenofemoral junction, 11) Final liberation of the surgical specimen and endoscopic view showing that all the tissue of the region was resected, 12) Removal of the surgical specimen through the initial orifice, 13) Vacuum drainage and synthesis of the incisions. COMMENTS: The VEIL technique is feasible and allows the radical removal of inguinal lymph nodes in the same limits of conventional surgery dissection. The main anatomic repairs of open surgery can be identified by the endoscopic view, confirming the complete removal of the lymphatic tissue within the pre-established limits. Preliminary results suggest that this technique can potentially reduce surgical morbidity. Oncologic follow-up is yet premature to demonstrate equivalence on the oncologic point of view.

Video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL): minimally invasive resection of inguinal lymph nodes

OBJECTIVES: Describe and illustrate a new minimally invasive approach for the radical resection of inguinal lymph nodes. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: From the experience acquired in 7 operated cases, the video endoscopic inguinal lymphadenectomy (VEIL) technique was standardized in the following surgical steps: 1) Positioning of the inferior member extended in abduction, 2) Introduction of 3 work ports distal to the femoral triangle, 3) Expansion of the working space with gas, 4) Retrograde separation of the skin flap with a harmonic scalpel, 5) Identification and dissection of the long saphenous vein until the oval fossa, 6) Identification of the femoral artery, 7) Distal ligature of the lymph node block at the femoral triangle vertex, 8) Liberation of the lymph node tissue up to the great vessels above the femoral floor, 9) Distal ligature of the long saphenous vein, 10) Control of the saphenofemoral junction, 11) Final liberation of the surgical specimen and endoscopic view showing that all the tissue of the region was resected, 12) Removal of the surgical specimen through the initial orifice, 13) Vacuum drainage and synthesis of the incisions. COMMENTS: The VEIL technique is feasible and allows the radical removal of inguinal lymph nodes in the same limits of conventional surgery dissection. The main anatomic repairs of open surgery can be identified by the endoscopic view, confirming the complete removal of the lymphatic tissue within the pre-established limits. Preliminary results suggest that this technique can potentially reduce surgical morbidity. Oncologic follow-up is yet premature to demonstrate equivalence on the oncologic point of view.

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.

PURPOSE: To make an objective controlled comparison of pain tolerance in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy using intrarectal topic anesthesia, injectable periprostatic anesthesia, or low-dose intravenous sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized into 4 groups: group I, intrarectal application of 2% lidocaine gel; group II, periprostatic anesthesia; group III, intravenous injection of midazolam and meperidine; and group IV, control, patients to whom no sedation or analgesic was given. Pain was evaluated using an analogue pain scale graded from 0 to 5. Acceptance of a repetition biopsy, the side effects of the drugs and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: 18/20 (90%) and 6/20 (30%) patients reported strong or unbearable pain in the group submitted to conventional biopsy and topical anesthesia (p = 0.23, chi-square = 1.41); whereas those submitted to periprostatic blockade and sedation, severe pain occurred in only 2/60 (3%) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 40.19) and 3/60 (5%) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 33.34). Acceptance of repetition of the biopsy was present in only 45% of the patients submitted to conventional biopsy, 60% of those that were given topical anesthesia (p = 0.52, chi-square = 0.4), compared to 100% of those submitted to periprostatic anesthesia (p < 0.01, chi-square = 15.17), and 95% of those who were sedated (p < 0.001, chi-square = 25.97%). CONCLUSIONS: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy is an uncomfortable experience; however application of periprostatic blockade and intravenous analgesia are associated to higher tolerance of the exam and patient comfort. Low dose sedation by association of intravenous meperidine and midazolam is an emerging and safe outpatient option.

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing three different ways of anesthesia in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy

PURPOSE: To make an objective controlled comparison of pain tolerance in transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy using intrarectal topic anesthesia, injectable periprostatic anesthesia, or low-dose intravenous sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized into 4 groups: group I, intrarectal application of 2 percent lidocaine gel; group II, periprostatic anesthesia; group III, intravenous injection of midazolam and meperidine; and group IV, control, patients to whom no sedation or analgesic was given. Pain was evaluated using an analogue pain scale graded from 0 to 5. Acceptance of a repetition biopsy, the side effects of the drugs and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: 18/20 (90 percent) and 6/20 (30 percent) patients reported strong or unbearable pain in the group submitted to conventional biopsy and topical anesthesia (p = 0.23, chi-square = 1.41); whereas those submitted to periprostatic blockade and sedation, severe pain occurred in only 2/60 (3 percent) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 40.19) and 3/60 (5 percent) patients (p < 0.001, chi-square = 33.34). Acceptance of repetition of the biopsy was present in only 45 percent of the patients submitted to conventional biopsy, 60 percent of those that were given topical anesthesia (p = 0.52, chi-square = 0.4), compared to 100 percent of those submitted to periprostatic anesthesia (p < 0.01, chi-square = 15.17), and 95 percent of those who were sedated (p < 0.001, chi-square = 25.97 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostatic biopsy is an uncomfortable experience; however application of periprostatic blockade and intravenous analgesia are associated to higher tolerance of the exam and patient comfort. Low dose sedation by association of intravenous meperidine and midazolam is an emerging and safe outpatient option.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy as a minimally invasive option in the treatment of large renal specimens

INTRODUCTION: We describe our experience with hand-assisted laparoscopy (HAL) as an option for the treatment of large renal specimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March 2000 and August 2004, 13 patients candidate to nephrectomies due to benign renal conditions with kidneys larger than 20 cm were included in a prospective protocol. Unilateral nephrectomy was performed in cases of hydronephrosis (6 patients) or giant pyonephrosis (4 patients). Bilateral nephrectomy was performed in 3 patients with adult polycystic kidney disease (APKD) with low back pain refractory to clinical treatment previous to kidney transplant. The technique included the introduction of 2 to 3 10 mm ports, manual incision to allow enough space for the surgeon's wrist without a commercial device to keep the pneumoperitoneum. The kidney was empty, preferably extracorporeally, enough to be removed through manual incision. We have assessed operative times, transfusions, complications, conversions, hospital stay and convalescence. RESULTS: The patients mean age (9 women and 4 men) was 58 years. Mean operating time was 120 n 10 min (hydronephrosis), 160 n 28 min (pyonephrosis) and 190 n 13 min (bilateral surgery for APKD). There was a need for a conversion in 1 case and another patient needed a transfusion due to a lesion in the renal vein; 2 patients had minor complications. CONCLUSION: HAL surgery is a minimally invasive alternative in the treatment of large renal specimens, with or without significant inflammation.

Laparoscopic surgery for treatment of incisional lumbar hernia.

OBJECTIVE: To present results obtained with laparoscopic correction of incisional lumbar hernia in patients with minimum follow-up of 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively studied 7 patients diagnosed with incisional lumbar hernia after physical examination and computerized tomography. We used laparoscopic transperitoneal access through 3 ports. One polypropylene mesh was introduced in the abdominal cavity and fixed by titanium clamps to the margins of the hernia ring following release of the peritoneum. RESULTS: All cases were successfully completed with no conversion required. Mean surgical time was 120 minutes and discharge from hospital occurred between the 1st and the 2nd postoperative days. There were no intraoperative complications or hernia recurrence in any case. Postoperatively, we had 2 minor complications: one case of seroma that resolved spontaneously after 60 days and one patient presenting lumbar pain that persisted until the 3rd postoperative month. The return to usual activities occurred on average 3 weeks following intervention. Of the 7 patients, 6 were satisfied with the esthetical and functional effect produced by the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical correction of incisional lumbar hernia by laparoscopic access is an excellent option for a minimally invasive treatment, with adequate long-term results.

Laparoscopic surgery for treatment of incisional lumbar hernia

OBJECTIVE: To present results obtained with laparoscopic correction of incisional lumbar hernia in patients with minimum follow-up of 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively studied 7 patients diagnosed with incisional lumbar hernia after physical examination and computerized tomography. We used laparoscopic transperitoneal access through 3 ports. One polypropylene mesh was introduced in the abdominal cavity and fixed by titanium clamps to the margins of the hernia ring following release of the peritoneum. RESULTS: All cases were successfully completed with no conversion required. Mean surgical time was 120 minutes and discharge from hospital occurred between the 1st and the 2nd postoperative days. There were no intraoperative complications or hernia recurrence in any case. Postoperatively, we had 2 minor complications: one case of seroma that resolved spontaneously after 60 days and one patient presenting lumbar pain that persisted until the 3rd postoperative month. The return to usual activities occurred on average 3 weeks following intervention. Of the 7 patients, 6 were satisfied with the esthetical and functional effect produced by the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical correction of incisional lumbar hernia by laparoscopic access is an excellent option for a minimally invasive treatment, with adequate long-term results.

Preliminary experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through duplication of the open technique.

OBJECTIVE: To describe surgical and functional results with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with duplication of the open technique, from the experience obtained in the treatment of 28 initial cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 36-month period, we prospectively analyzed 28 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer undergoing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Mean surgical time was 280 min, with mean blood loss of 320 mL. As intraoperative complications, there were 2 rectal lesions repaired with laparoscopic suture in 2 planes. There was no conversion to open surgery. Median hospital stay was 3 days, with return to oral diet in the first post-operative day in patients. As post-operative complications, there were 3 cases of extraperitoneal urinary fistula. Two of these cases were resolved by maintaining a Foley catheter for 21 days, and the other one by late endoscopic reintervention for repositioning the catheter. Five out of 18 previously potent patients evolved with erectile dysfunction. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was confirmed in all patients, with focal positive margin occurring in 3 cases. During a mean follow-up of 18 months, 2 patients presented increased PSA, with no clinical evidence of disease. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a laborious and difficult procedure, with a long learning curve. Extraperitoneal access is feasible, and it is possible to practically duplicate the principles of open surgery. The present technique can possibly offer advantages in terms of decreased blood loss, preservation of erectile function and prevention of positive margins.

Preliminary experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy through duplication of the open technique

OBJECTIVE: To describe surgical and functional results with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with duplication of the open technique, from the experience obtained in the treatment of 28 initial cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 36-month period, we prospectively analyzed 28 patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer undergoing extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Mean surgical time was 280 min, with mean blood loss of 320 mL. As intraoperative complications, there were 2 rectal lesions repaired with laparoscopic suture in 2 planes. There was no conversion to open surgery. Median hospital stay was 3 days, with return to oral diet in the first post-operative day in patients. As post-operative complications, there were 3 cases of extraperitoneal urinary fistula. Two of these cases were resolved by maintaining a Foley catheter for 21 days, and the other one by late endoscopic reintervention for repositioning the catheter. Five out of 18 previously potent patients evolved with erectile dysfunction. The diagnosis of prostate cancer was confirmed in all patients, with focal positive margin occurring in 3 cases. During a mean follow-up of 18 months, 2 patients presented increased PSA, with no clinical evidence of disease. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a laborious and difficult procedure, with a long learning curve. Extraperitoneal access is feasible, and it is possible to practically duplicate the principles of open surgery. The present technique can possibly offer advantages in terms of decreased blood loss, preservation of erectile function and prevention of positive margins.

Retroperitoneoscopic surgery with extracorporeal uretero-ureteral anastomosis for treating retrocaval ureter.

We present a case of retrocaval ureter featuring laparoscopic technique treatment using extraperitoneal access and extracorporeal suture of the ureteral stumps. Surgical time was 130 minutes, and the anastomosis was performed in 40 minutes. There were no intra- or postoperative complications, and the patient was discharged from hospital on the second postoperative day. The medium-term outcome featured similar results to pure laparoscopic technique. We conclude that this technical variation for treatment of retrocaval ureter makes the procedure easier and provides a drastic reduction in surgical time, without compromising the minimally invasive aspect of this kind of approach.

Retroperitoneoscopic surgery with extracorporeal uretero-ureteral anastomosis for treating retrocaval ureter

We present a case of retrocaval ureter featuring laparoscopic technique treatment using extraperitoneal access and extracorporeal suture of the ureteral stumps. Surgical time was 130 minutes, and the anastomosis was performed in 40 minutes. There were no intra- or postoperative complications, and the patient was discharged from hospital on the second postoperative day. The medium-term outcome featured similar results to pure laparoscopic technique. We conclude that this technical variation for treatment of retrocaval ureter makes the procedure easier and provides a drastic reduction in surgical time, without compromising the minimally invasive aspect of this kind of approach.