medigraphic.com
ISSN 2305-7939 (Electronic)

2018, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

RCU 2018; 7 (1)

Complications of laparoscopic urological surgery

Pérez MLE, de la Paz PY, González LT, Morera PM, Ortega VEA

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 13-19
PDF size: 698.03 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The implementation and development of laparoscopic surgery in Urology has revolutionized most surgical techniques of the specialty. Over time, it has proven its efficacy but it is not exempt of complications. Objective: To describe the complications of urological laparoscopic surgery. Method: A descriptive retrospective study was at National Center of Minimally Invasive Surgery between 2010 and 2015. The sample comprised 406 patients from 464patients treated by laparoscopic surgery, even when the surgery was with simultaneous endourologic approach. Results: 46 patients (11.3 %) presented complications; 8.1 % had minor complications and 3.2 % had major ones. Patients between 31 and 60 years of age, ASA II, surgeries from moderate and high difficulty, and a lumboscopic approach prevailed, respectively. An expert performed 69.9 % of the surgeries. Grade II complications were the most frequent and medical treatment was the most used (73.4 %). None of the patients underwent reoperation with open surgery and none died. Conclusions: Urological laparoscopic surgery is safe with low rates of complications. It is important to know the potential complications and manage them with the adequate and appropriate treatment. Both laparoscopic approach and endourologic procedures are valid for their treatment.


REFERENCES

  1. Soto-DelgadoM, Pedrero-Márquez G, Juárez- Soto Á, Arroyo-MaestreJ M. Nuestra experiencia inicial en nefrectomía parcial laparoscópica. Análisis de los 20 primeros casos. Rev Arg Urol. 2013;78(3):104-08.

  2. Reyes Pérez V M, Ardanaz I, Levy Yeyati E, OcantosJ. Rol de la angio-TCMD en la evaluación prequirúrgica de masas renales tratadas con cirugía conservadora. Rev Arg Urol. 2015;80(1):31-7.

  3. Carrara S, Juaneda R, Leiva J, Carranza M, Arismendi E, Bertrán M, et al. Análisis comparativo entre nefrectomía parcial laparoscópica y a cielo abierto. Rev Arg Urol.2014;79(3):88-90.

  4. D´Orazio OR, D´Orazio OA, de Rosas JE. Nuevo catéter doble jota para uso laparoscópico y cirugía abierta. Rev Arg Urol. 2013;78(2):64-8.

  5. García Marchiñena PA, Billordo Pérez N, Bergero MA, Jurado Navaro AM, Tobia González I, Damia O, et al. Resultados funcionales de la cirugía renal conservadora: comparación entre dos técnicas. Rev Arg Urol. 2012;77(1):76-81.

  6. Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR, Soper NJ, Dierks SM, Merety KS, Darcy MD, et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(19):1370- 1.

  7. Hagop Sarkissian, Brian Irwin H. Complications of laparo-endoscopic single-site surgery in urology. Indian J Urol. 2013;29(2):100-04.

  8. González León T. Cirugía laparoscópica urológica. En: Iturralde Codina AR, González León T, Castillo Rodriguez M. Cirugía urológica de mínimo acceso. La Habana: Editorial Ciencias Médicas; 2010. p. 81-104.

  9. Olivé González JB. Complicaciones relacionadas con la anestesia, en cirugía laparoscópica. Rev Cubana Anestesiol Reanim. 2013;12(1):57-69.

  10. Michael S. Lasser, Reza Ghavamian. Surgical complications of laparoscopic urological surgery. Arab J Urol. 2012;10(1):81-8.

  11. Torricelli FC, Guglielmetti G, Duarte RJ, Srougi M. Laparoscopic skill laboratory in urological surgery: tools and methods for resident training. Int Braz J Urol. 2011;37(1):108- 11.

  12. Joshua Kaplan R, Ziho Lee, Daniel Eun D, Adam Reese C. Complications of minimally invasive surgery and their management. Curr Urol Rep.2016;17(6):47. doi: 10.1007/s11934- 016-0602-6

  13. Akin Y, Ates M, Celik O, Ucar M, Yucel S, Erdogru T. Complications of urologic laparoscopic surgery: a center surgeon's experience involving 601 procedures including the learning curve. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2013;29(5):275-9.

  14. Montes SF, Rodríguez IG, Ugarteburu RG, Villamil LR, Mendez BD, Gil PS, et al. Intraoperative laparoscopic complications for urological cancer procedures. World J Clin Cases. 2015;3(5):450-6.

  15. Sanli O, Tefik T, Erdem S, Ortac M, Salabas E, Karakus S, et al. Prospective evaluation of complications in laparoscopic urology at a midvolume institution using standardized criteria: Experience of 1023 cases including learning curve in 9 years. J Minim Access Surg. 2016;12(1):33-40.

  16. Habuchi T, Terachi T, Mimata H, Kondo Y, Kanayama H, Ichikawa T, et al. Evaluation of 2,590 urological laparoscopic surgeries undertaken by urological surgeons accredited by an endoscopic surgical skill qualification system in urological laparoscopy in Japan. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(6):1656-63.

  17. Yoon PD, Chalasani V, Woo HH. Use of Clavien-Dindo classification in reporting and grading complications after urological surgical procedures: analysis of 2010 to 2012. J Urol. 2013;190(4):1271-4.

  18. Karsli C, El-Hout Y, Lorenzo AJ, Langer JC, Bägli DJ, Pippi Salle JL, et al. Physiological changes in transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopy in children: a prospective analysis. J Urol. 2011;186(4 Suppl):1649-52.

  19. Wszolek MF, Canes D, Moinzadeh A, Sorcini A. Laparoscopy for the detection and treatment of early complications from minimally invasive urologic surgery. J Endourol. 2014;28(10):1197- 201.

  20. González León T, Suárez Marcillán ME, Cuza Herrera Y, Tegegne Alemayehu, de la Paz Pérez Y, Rodríguez-Ojea L. Laparoscopic surgery for lumbar ureteric stones. Rev Cubana Urol. 2016;5(1). Disponible en: http://www.revurologia.sld.cu/index.php/rcu/is sue/view/12

  21. TaskiranM, Sariogullari U, Acinikli H, Abdullayev E, et al. Comparison of laparoscopic and open uretero lithotomy in impacted and very large ureteral stones. Urol J. 2014;11(2):1423-8.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com