PTU - Polskie Towarzystwo Urologiczne
home page
current numbers
archival numbers
list of articles:
list przewodni/covering letter
editor
Scientific Committee
publisher
subscription
advertising
important links

VALUE OF LAPAROSCOPIC AND RETROPERITONEOSCOPIC OPERATIONS IN UROLOGY. OWN EXPERIENCES
Article published in Urologia Polska 1999/52/3.

authors

Mieczysław Fryczkowski, Jacek Huk, Andrzej Potyka, Zbigniew Kaleta
II Katedra i Klinika Urologii ¦AM w Zabrzu
Kierownik kliniki: prof. dr hab. n. med. M. Fryczkowski

keywords

laparoscopy retroperitoneoscopy urology

summary

Objective. The aim of this paper is retrospective cvaluation of the results
and complications after videoscopic operations in patients with urological
diseases.
Materials and methods. The analyses have been performed in 255 patients
in age range from 4 to 71 years. There were 232 transperitoneal and 23
retroperitoneal operations among them.
Results. The good surgical results were observed in 95.7% patients.
Complications were noted in 17 (6.7%) and postoperative mortality in 0%.
Conversion to the open operations was performed in 4 (1.6%) patients.
Average time of the both types of the operations was 63 min (24-185), and
mean hospitalization time was 3.0 days (2-16). The follow-up was performed
in mean 16.5 months (3-33) after these operations.
Conclusions. Videoscopie operations are less invasive, cause less serious
complications, short hospitalization time and recovcry to active professional
life if compared with clinical open surgeries.

references

  1. [1] Gluing, H. ]., Chiu, A. W., Cheu, K. K. i wsp.: Alteralions in pulmonary
  2. function after retroperitoneoscopic surgery. Brit. J. Urol. 1996,78,821-825.
  3. [2] Decimo, S. S. Moore, R., Adams, J.: Laparoscopic orchidopexy for the high pal-
  4. pable undescended testis: Preliminary experiences. J. Urol. 1995,154,1513-1515.
  5. [3| Doehn, Ch., Fornara, P., Fricke, L., [ocham, D.: Comparison of laparoscopic
  6. and open nephrouterectoinyfor bening disease. J. Urol. 1998,159,732-734.
  7. [4] Fornanra, P., Doehn, Ch., Jocham, D.: Laparoscopic nephropexy, 3 yearcxpe-
  8. rience. J. Urol. 1997,158,1679-1683.
  9. [5] Gour, D. D., Drashara, A. S.: Retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. J.
  10. Urol. 1994, 151, 927-929.
  11. [6] Gill, J. S., Kavaussi, R. W., Clayman, R. I. i wsp.: Complication of laparosco-
  12. pic nephrectomy in 185 patients. A multiinstitutional review. J. Urol. 1993, 154,
  13. 479-483.
  14. [7] Higashihara, R. ]., Baba, S., Nagagawa, K.: Learningcurveandcorwersion to
  15. open surgery in case of laparoscopic adrenalectomy and nephrectomy. J. Urol. 1998,
  16. 159, 650-653.
  17. [8] Janetschek, G., Daffner, R, Peschel, B., Bartsch, G.: Laparoscopic nephron-
  18. sparing surgery for smali renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 1998,159,1151-1155.
  19. [9] Micali S., Moore R. G., Avech T. D. i wsp.: The role of laparoscopic in the
  20. treatment of renal and ureteral calculi. ]. Urol. 1997,157,463-466.
  21. [10] Moore, R. G., Averch, T. D., Schulman, T. G. i w sp..Laparoscopic pyelopla-
  22. sty. Experience with the initial 30 cases. J. Urol. 1997,157, 459-462.
  23. [11] Stone, N. H., Unger, P.: Indication for seminal iwsicale biopsy and laparoscopic
  24. pehńc lymph node dissection in men with localized carcinoma of the prostatae. J. Urol.
  25. 1995, 154, 1392-1396.
  26. [12] Vancaillie, T. G., Schuesseler, W.: Laparaoscopic bladder neck suspension.
  27. J. Laparoendosc. Surg. 1991,1,169-170.