27Jan 2020


  • Assistant Professor, Department of Urology, Dhaka Medical College Hospital
  • Assistant Professor, BSMMU, Dhaka
  • Medical Officer, Department of Urology, Dhaka Medical College Hospital
  • Resident, Department of Urology, Dhaka Medical College Hospital
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Objective: Retrospective review and evaluation of the perioperative experiences, complications and outcomes of initial 100 cases of different urological surgery performed by laparoscopic procedure. Methods: From January 2016 to July 2019, a total of 100 patients underwent different laparoscopic urological surgery and were evaluated retrospectively. All patients were assessed by demographic variables, diagnosis, surgical procedure, approach of laparoscopy, operation time, hospital stay, complications during and after surgery and conversion to open surgery as well as observations in every step of surgery and perioperative period. RESULTS: 72 patients were male and 28 were female. The median age (range) was 36 (12-64) years. All patients underwent transperitoneal approach. Among them most of the cases were pyeloplasty 26% (n=26) followed by ureterolithotomy 19% (n=19) and radical cystectomy 16% (n=16). Peroperatively 3 cases were converted to open procedure among them one was radical cystectomy case due to excessive bleeding from superior vesical artery and two were radical prostatectomy cases; postoperatively one case of pyeloplasty required exploration due to excessive drain output and one post radical cystectomy patient required cutaneous ureterostomy for urinary leakage due to necrosis of distal few cm of left ureter. Conclusion: Laparoscopic urological surgery is a safe alternative to open surgery in experienced hand. However, in the field of urooncolgy, oncological outcomes yet to be determined in comparison to open surgery.

  1. Schuessler W, Vancaillie T, Reich H, et al. Transperitoneal endosurgical lymphadenectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer. J Urol 1991; 145: 988-991.
  2. Demir O, Ozturk B, Egriboyun S, Esen AA. Initial experience with urologic laparoscopic surgery in our clinic and the learning process. Dokuz Eylul Universitesi Tip Fakultesi Derg 2010; 24:105-112.
  3. Chung JH, Lee SW, Lee KS, et al. Safety of en bloc ligation of the renal hilum during laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. J Laparoscopic Adv Surg Tech A 2013; 23:489-494.
  4. Rassweiler J. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is also oncologically safe and effective! BJU Int 2013; 112:158.
  5. Wickham JEA. The surgical treatment of renal lithiasis. In: Urinary Calculus Disease. edn. Edited by JEA W: New York, NY: Churchill-Livingstone; 1979: 145-198.
  6. Daggulli M, Utangac MM, Bozkurt Y, et al. Our laparoscopic radical nephrectomy experiences. Dicle Med J 2014; 41:732-737.
  7. Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV, Preminger GM. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J Urol 1993; 150:1795-1799.
  8. Touijer K, Eastham JA, Secin FP, Romero Otero J, Serio A, Stasi J, et al. Comprehensive prospective comparative analysis of outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy conducted in 2003 to 2005. J Urol 2008; 179:1811-17.
  9. Soulie M, Seguin P. Urological complications of laparoscopic surgery: Experience with 350 procedures at a single center. J Urol 2002; 165:1960-1963.

[Md. Towhid Belal, Ripon Devnath, Tanvir Ahmed Chowdhury, Shamim Hossain, Selim Morshed and Nahid Rahman Zico (2020); LAPAROSCOPIC UROLOGICAL SURGERY - PERIOPERATIVE EXPERIENCES OF INITIAL 100 CASES Int. J. of Adv. Res. 8 (1). 249-253] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Md. Towhid Belal


Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/10291       DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/10291

Share this article