Titanium Mesh Nasal Repair without Nasal Lining

AbstractThe objective of this study was to describe outcomes for patients who underwent titanium mesh reconstruction of full-thickness nasal defects without internal lining repair. This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients with through-and-through nasal defects were identified at a single academic institution between 2008 and 2016. Nasal reconstruction was performed with either titanium mesh and external skin reconstruction without repair of the intranasal lining or traditional three-layer closure. Five patients underwent titanium mesh reconstruction and 11 underwent traditional three-layer repair. Median follow-up was 11 months (range, 2–66 months). The only significant difference between groups was older age in patients undergoing titanium reconstruction (mean, 81 vs. 63 years; difference of 18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4–32 years). Defect extent including overall size and structures removed was similar between groups (p > 0.05). Paramedian forehead flap was the most common external reconstruction in both groups (100% for titanium mesh and 73% for three-layer closure). Time under anesthesia was significantly shorter for titanium mesh reconstruction (median, 119 vs. 314 minutes; difference of 195; 95% CI, 45–237). Estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were similar between groups (p > 0.05). Complication rates were substantial although not significantly different, 40 and 36% in titanium and three-layer reconstruction, respectively (p > 0.05). All patients with complications after titanium reconstruction had prior or postoperative radiotherapy. Titanium mesh reconstruction of through-and-through nasal defects can successfully be performed without reconstruction of the intranasal lining, significantly decreasing operative times. This reconstructive technique may not be suitable for patients who undergo radiotherapy.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of Primary Repair and Anastomosis for Traumatic Colonic Injuries in a Tertiary Trauma Center

Medicina ◽

10.3390/medicina56090440 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 56 (9) ◽

pp. 440

Author(s):

Marie Shella De Robles ◽

Christopher J. Young

Keyword(s):

Surgical Management ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Primary Repair ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Injury Mechanism ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Colonic Injury ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Injured Part ◽

Resection And Anastomosis

Background: Surgical management for traumatic colonic injuries has undergone major changes in the past decades. Despite the increasing confidence in primary repair for both penetrating colonic injury (PCI) and blunt colonic injury (BCI), there are authors still advocating for a colostomy particularly for BCI. This study aims to describe the surgical management of colonic injuries in a level 1 metropolitan trauma center and compare patient outcomes between PCI and BCI. Methods: Twenty-one patients who underwent trauma laparotomy for traumatic colonic injuries between January 2011 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: BCI accounted for 67% and PCI for 33% of traumatic colonic injuries. The transverse colon was the most commonly injured part of the colon (43%), followed by the sigmoid colon (33%). Primary repair (52%) followed by resection-anastomosis (38%) remain the most common procedures performed regardless of the injury mechanism. Only two (10%) patients required a colostomy. There was no significant difference comparing patients who underwent primary repair, resection-anastomosis and colostomy formation in terms of complication rates (55% vs. 50% vs. 50%, p = 0.979) and length of hospital stay (21 vs. 21 vs. 19 days, p = 0.991). Conclusions: Regardless of the injury mechanism, either primary repair or resection and anastomosis is a safe method in the management of the majority of traumatic colonic injuries.

Download Full-text

Characterization of complications associated with open and endoscopic craniosynostosis surgery at a single institution

Journal of Neurosurgery Pediatrics ◽

10.3171/2015.7.peds15187 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 361-370 ◽

Cited By ~ 38

Author(s):

Rowland H. Han ◽

Dennis C. Nguyen ◽

Brent S. Bruck ◽

Gary B. Skolnick ◽

Chester K. Yarbrough ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Csf Shunt ◽

Medical Complications ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Endoscopic Procedures ◽

Packed Red Blood Cells ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Csf Leakage

OBJECT The authors present a retrospective cohort study examining complications in patients undergoing surgery for craniosynostosis using both minimally invasive endoscopic and open approaches. METHODS Over the past 10 years, 295 nonsyndromic patients (140 undergoing endoscopic procedures and 155 undergoing open procedures) and 33 syndromic patients (endoscopic procedures in 10 and open procedures in 23) met the authors’ criteria. Variables analyzed included age at surgery, presence of a preexisting CSF shunt, skin incision method, estimated blood loss, transfusions of packed red blood cells, use of intravenous steroids or tranexamic acid, intraoperative durotomies, procedure length, and length of hospital stay. Complications were classified as either surgically or medically related. RESULTS In the nonsyndromic endoscopic group, the authors experienced 3 (2.1%) surgical and 5 (3.6%) medical complications. In the nonsyndromic open group, there were 2 (1.3%) surgical and 7 (4.5%) medical complications. Intraoperative durotomies occurred in 5 (3.6%) endoscopic and 12 (7.8%) open cases, were repaired primarily, and did not result in reoperations for CSF leakage. Similar complication rates were seen in syndromic cases. There was no death or permanent morbidity. Additionally, endoscopic procedures were associated with significantly decreased estimated blood loss, transfusions, procedure length, and length of hospital stay compared with open procedures. CONCLUSIONS Rates of intraoperative durotomies and surgical and medical complications were comparable between endoscopic and open techniques. This is the largest direct comparison to date between endoscopic and open interventions for synostosis, and the results are in agreement with previous series that endoscopic surgery confers distinct advantages over open surgery in appropriate patient populations.

Download Full-text

Open cystectomy is still alive and well: Outcomes from a single-centre 6-year review

Journal of Clinical Urology ◽

10.1177/2051415818759366 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 12 (3) ◽

pp. 239-245

Author(s):

Alexios Dosis ◽

Blessing Dhliwayo ◽

Patrick Jones ◽

Iva Kovacevic ◽

Jonathan Yee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Radical Cystectomy ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Categorical Variables ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽

Single Centre ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Duration Of Surgery

Objectives: To compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between open and laparoscopic radical cystectomy in a single-centre setting. Materials and methods: This study was a retrospective cohort (level 2b evidence) non-randomised review of 228 radical cystectomies that were performed between January 2010 and February 2016. Primary outcome measures were operative time, complications, blood loss and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS v21.0. Quantitative values were compared with Student’s t-test; categorical variables with the chi-square test. Statistical significance was considered a result of an alpha value less than 0.05. A Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was also conducted. Results: Intraoperative blood loss was lower in laparoscopic surgery (855±673 vs. 716±570 mL, P=0.15), which had a significant impact on transfusion rates ( P=0.02). Operative times were lower in open surgery (339±52.9 vs. 353.1±67.1 minutes, P=0.10), while hospital stay was lower in the laparoscopic group (14.2±11.2 vs. 16.0±13.6 days, P=0.28). Five-year survival rates were superior for patients who underwent an open procedure but were not statistically significant ( P=0.10). Conclusion: This is, so far, the largest cohort to compare laparoscopic and open radical cystectomy. The laparoscopic approach can reduce the need for transfusion; however, there was no statistically significant difference in complication rates, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay or intraoperative blood loss, survival and margin positivity. Level of evidence: Not applicable for this multicentre audit.

Download Full-text

Two-level corpectomy versus three-level discectomy for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a comparison of perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes

Journal of Neurosurgery Spine ◽

10.3171/2014.12.spine14545 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 23 (3) ◽

pp. 280-289 ◽

Cited By ~ 35

Author(s):

Darryl Lau ◽

Dean Chou ◽

Praveen V. Mummaneni

Keyword(s):

Length Of Stay ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Cobb Angle ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Second Stage ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Significant Difference

OBJECT In the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) are effective decompressive techniques. It remains to be determined whether ACCF and ACDF offer equivalent outcomes for multilevel CSM. In this study, the authors compared perioperative, radiographic, and clinical outcomes between 2-level ACCF and 3-level ACDF. METHODS Between 2006 and 2012, all patients at the authors' hospital who underwent 2-level ACCF or 3-level ACDF performed by 1 of 2 surgeons were identified. Primary outcomes of interest were sagittal Cobb angle, adjacent-segment disease (ASD) requiring surgery, neck pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS), and Nurick score. Secondary outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, perioperative complications, and radiographic pseudarthrosis rate. Chi-square tests and 2-tailed Student t-tests were used to compare the 2 groups. A subgroup analysis of patients without posterior spinal fusion (PSF) was also performed. RESULTS Twenty patients underwent 2-level ACCF, and 35 patients underwent 3-level ACDF during a 6-year period. Preoperative Nurick scores were higher in the ACCF group (2.1 vs 1.1, p = 0.014), and more patients underwent PSF in the 2-level ACCF group compared with patients in the 3-level ACDF group (60.0% vs 17.1%, p = 0.001). Otherwise there were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, and baseline clinical parameters between the 2 groups. Two-level ACCF was associated with significantly higher EBL compared with 3-level ACDF for the anterior stage of surgery (382.2 ml vs 117.9 ml, p < 0.001). Two-level ACCF was also associated with a longer hospital stay compared with 3-level ACDF (7.2 days vs 4.9 days, p = 0.048), but a subgroup comparison of patients without PSF showed no significant difference in length of stay (3.1 days vs 4.4 days for 2-level ACCF vs 3-level ACDF, respectively; p = 0.267). Similarly, there was a trend toward more complications in the 2-level ACCF group (20.0%) than the 3-level ACDF group (5.7%; p = 0.102), but a subgroup analysis that excluded those who had second-stage PSF no longer showed the same trend (2-level ACCF, 0.0% vs 3-level ACDF, 3.4%; p = 0.594). There were no significant differences between the ACCF group and the ACDF group in terms of postoperative sagittal Cobb angle (7.2° vs 12.1°, p = 0.173), operative ASD (6.3% vs 3.6%, p = 0.682), and radiographic pseudarthrosis rate (6.3% vs 7.1%, p = 0.909). Both groups had similar improvement in mean VAS neck pain scores (3.4 vs 3.2 for ACCF vs ACDF, respectively; p = 0.860) and Nurick scores (0.8 vs 0.7, p = 0.925). CONCLUSIONS Two-level ACCF was associated with greater EBL and longer hospital stays when patients underwent a second-stage PSF. However, the length of stay was similar when patients underwent anterior-only decompression with either 2-level ACCF or 3-level ACDF. Furthermore, perioperative complication rates were similar in the 2 groups when patients underwent anterior decompression without PSF. Both groups obtained similar postoperative cervical lordosis, operative ASD rates, radiographic pseudarthrosis rates, neurological improvement, and pain relief.

Download Full-text

Complicated Appendicitis–Is the Laparoscopic Approach Appropriate? A Comparative Study with the Open Approach: Outcome in a Community Hospital Setting

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/000313480707300801 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 73 (8) ◽

pp. 737-742 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Naveen Pokala ◽

S. Sadhasivam ◽

R.P. Kiran ◽

V. Parithivel

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Operative Time ◽

Laparoscopic Approach ◽

Complicated Appendicitis ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Intraabdominal Abscess ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Significant Difference ◽

American Society ◽

American Society Of Anesthesiologists

Good outcome has been reported with the laparoscopic approach in uncomplicated appendicitis, but a higher incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses has been reported after laparoscopic appendectomy in complicated appendicitis. This retrospective comparative study compares outcome after laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) in complicated appendicitis. All patients who had LA or OA for complicated appendicitis between January 2003 and February 2006 were included in the study. Data collection included demographics, operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay (LOS), complications, readmission, and reoperative rates. The primary end points for analysis were postoperative intraabdominal abscess and complication rates and secondary end points were LOS and operative time. All data were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Of 104 patients, 43 patients underwent LA and 61 had OA. The mean age (24.8 ± 16.5 versus 31.3 ± 18.9, P = 0.08) in the LA group was lower than the OA group because there was a significantly higher proportion of pediatric patients (34.8% versus 14.8%, P = 0.02) who had LA. There was no significant difference in gender (female/male, 14/29 versus 27/34, P = 0.3) or American Society of Anesthesiologists class distribution (American Society of Anesthesiologists 1/2/3/4/, 35/7/1/0 versus 45/12/3/1, P = 0.68) between the two groups. The operative time (100.5 ± 36.2 versus 81.5 ± 29.5 minutes, P = 0.03) was significantly longer and the estimated blood loss (21 mL versus 33 mL, P = 0.01) was lower in LA when compared with OA, but there was no significant difference in the number of patients with preoperative peritonitis versus abscesses (7/36 versus 13/48, P = 0.6) in both groups. There was no difference in the median LOS (6 [interquartile range 5–9] versus 6 [interquartile range 4–8], P = 0.7) in the two groups. The conversion rate in LA was 18.6% (n = 8). There was also no significant difference in the complication (17/43 [39.5%] versus 21/61 [34.4%], P = 0.54), reoperative (3/43 [7%] versus 0/61 [0%], P = 0.07), and 30-day readmission (5/41 [11.6%] versus 3/61 [4.9%], P = 0.23) rates between the two groups. The rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses was significantly higher in the LA group when compared with the OA group (6/43 [14%] versus 0/61 [0%], P = 0.04) and the wound infection (1/43 [2.3%] versus 5/61 [8.2%], P = 0.4) and pulmonary complication (0/43 [0%] versus 3/61 [4.9%], P = 0.26) rate was higher in the OA group. There was no mortality in the LA group, but there was one mortality in the OA group resulting from postoperative myocardial infarction. Laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed in patients with complicated appendicitis with a comparative operative time, LOS, and complication rates but results in a significantly higher intraabdominal abscess rate and lower wound infection rate when compared with OA.

Download Full-text

Feasibility of short term drainage for diagnostic thoracoscopy

Monaldi Archives for Chest Disease ◽

10.4081/monaldi.2009.361 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 71 (2) ◽

Author(s):

D.P. Breen ◽

S. Mallawathantri ◽

A. Fraticelli ◽

L. Greillier ◽

P. Astoul

Keyword(s):

Hospital Stay ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Economic Benefits ◽

Optimal Time ◽

Chest Drain ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Short Term ◽

Drainage Time ◽

Drain Removal ◽

Significant Difference

Background and Aim. Thoracoscopy is a diagnostic tool superior to other available techniques for the assessment of pleural effusions. There are numerous publications that describe the technique in detail but there is very little published on the optimal time of chest drain removal post procedure. Our aim was to retrospectively study all cases of diagnostic thoracoscopy and to ascertain the time of chest drain removal, length of hospital stay and associated complications. Methods. All patients who underwent thoracoscopy during a 6-year period were identified from a computerised database. Patients who received talc for pleurodesis were excluded as they required longer drainage time. A review of the remaining patients’ charts and radiology was performed to ascertain the predefined outcomes. Results. 124 patients had a diagnostic thoracoscopy. The time to chest drain removal was documented as less than four hours, four to 24 hours, 24 to 48 hours and greater than 48 hours in 66 (53.2%), 29 (23.4%), 12 (9.7%) and 17 (13.7%) of patients respectively. The median length of stay for all patients was one day (interquartile range, 1-4 days). There was a statistically significant difference in overall length of hospital stay between the early (48 hours) chest drain removal groups, p=0.0028. The overall complication rate was 15.9%. There was no statistical difference in complication rates between the two groups. Conclusion. This retrospective series demonstrates that early chest drain removal post diagnostic thoracoscopy is possible and safe. This is likely to confer economic benefits.

Download Full-text

Simple prostatectomy using the open and robotic approaches for lower urinary tract symptoms: A retrospective, case-control series

Canadian Urological Association Journal ◽

10.5489/cuaj.7351 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Dor Golomb ◽

Fernanda Gabrigna Berto ◽

Jennifer Bjazevic ◽

Jose A. Gomez ◽

Joseph L.K. Chin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Blood Loss ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Functional Results ◽

Perioperative Outcomes ◽

Minimal Risk ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Control Series ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Simple Prostatectomy

Introduction: We aimed to assess the outcome of our series of simple prostatectomy using the open simple prostatectomy (OSP) and robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) approaches, at our institution. Methods: A retrospective chart review of men who underwent OSP and RASP at Western University, in London, ON. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and analyzed. Results: From 2012–2020, 29 men underwent a simple prostatectomy at our institution. Eight patients underwent an OSP and 21 patients underwent a RASP. The median age was 69 years. Preoperative median prostate volume was 153 cm3 (range 80–432 cm3). The surgical indications were failed medical treatment, urinary retention, hydronephrosis, cystolithiasis, and recurrent hematuria. The median operative time was 137.5 minutes in OSP and 185 minutes in the robotic approach (p=0.04). Median estimated blood loss was 2300 ml (range 600–4000 ml) and 100 ml (range 50–400 ml) in the open and robotic procedures, respectively (p=0.4). The mean length of hospital stay was shorter in the RASP group, one day vs. three days (z=4.152, p<0.005). Perioperative complication rates were significantly lower in the group undergoing RASP, with no complications recorded in this group (p=0.004). Both groups demonstrated excellent functional results, with most patients reporting complete urinary continence (p=0.8). Conclusions: We report very good perioperative outcomes, with a minimal risk profile and excellent functional results, leading to marked improvement in patients' symptoms at followup after both the OSP and RASP approaches. RASP was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay, decreased blood loss, and a lower complication rate.

Download Full-text

816 Managing Acute Appendicitis During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Single-Centre Retrospective Study

British Journal of Surgery ◽

10.1093/bjs/znab259.478 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽

Author(s):

A Lotfallah ◽

A Aamery ◽

G Moussa

Keyword(s):

Acute Appendicitis ◽

Hospital Stay ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Interquartile Range ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Alvarado Score ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic provoked a change to normal surgical practice and led to a higher proportion of acute appendicitis (AA) patients being treated conservatively with antibiotics. We aim to analyse patients presenting with AA during the first wave of the pandemic, comparing surgically and conservatively managed patients. Method All patients presenting to our centre with AA between March and July 2020 were included. Six-month follow-up data was collected retrospectively using electronic records. Patients were categorised into surgically and conservatively managed groups. The primary outcome was the complication rate (post-operative complications vs failure of antibiotic treatment) and the secondary outcome was length of hospital stay. Results Fifty-seven patients (n = 57) were admitted with AA, 45.6% (n = 26) managed conservatively compared to 54.4% (n = 31) treated surgically. Higher complication rates were observed amongst the conservatively managed group, although not statistically significant (16% vs 35%; p = 0.131). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay observed between the two groups (surgical: median, 2; interquartile range, 2-3 vs conservative: median, 3; interquartile range, 2-4). White cell count (WCC) and Alvarado score were higher on admission in the surgical group with statistical significance (p = 0.012 and p = 0.028 respectively). Conclusions Stratification criteria, such as Alvarado score and WCC may identify patients more suitable for conservative management. Longer term follow-up will be carried out, which may alter complication rates in either group. We suggest all patients treated conservatively should undergo computerised tomography (CT) to exclude complicated appendicitis. Further UK-based studies will add to the evidence-base surrounding management of AA during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Guy’s vs S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scoring systems in predicting the success rate of PCNL

Journal of Clinical Urology ◽

10.1177/2051415816689360 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 10 (5) ◽

pp. 423-429

Author(s):

VS Rathee ◽

Vivek HC ◽

Sartaj Wali Khan ◽

AK Singh ◽

Pushpender Kumar Shukla ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Regression Analysis ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Scoring Systems ◽

Roc Curves ◽

Renal Calculi ◽

Medical Sciences ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Stone Free Rate ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Free Status

Introduction and objective: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the Guy’s and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems in predicting percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) outcomes. Methods: This prospective study was carried out in the Department of Urology, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, between August 2013 and September 2015 in collaboration with the Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging. A total of 100 cases of renal calculi operated on with PCNL were considered in the study on the basis of CT morphodensitometry. The study was approved by the institute’s ethical committee. Guy’s and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems were calculated. Regression analysis and ROC curves were performed. Results: A total of 100 PCNLs were operated on. The overall stone-free rate was 90% with a complication rate of 17%. When compared to patients with residual fragments, stone-free patients had significantly lower Guy’s grade (3.5 vs 2; p < 0.001) and S.T.O.N.E. score (9.1 vs 7.5; p = 0.023). Logistic regression analysis showed that both Guy’s and S.T.O.N.E. systems were significantly associated with stone-free status, OR 0.96 ( p < 0.001) and OR 0.94 ( p < 0.001), respectively. Furthermore, both scoring systems were significantly associated with estimated blood loss ( p = 0.02 and p = 0.004). There was good correlation between both scoring systems and operative time ( r = 0.2, p < 0.002 and r = 0.3, p < 0.002) and length of hospital stay ( r = 0.1, p = 0.002 and r = 0.2, p < 0.002). There were significant associations between both scoring systems and complications ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.004). There was no significant difference in the areas under the curves for the Guy’s and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems (0.96 (95% CI 0.92–0.99) vs 0.94 (95% CI 0.89–1.001); p < 0.001). Conclusion: Both Guy’s and S.T.O.N.E scoring systems have comparable accuracies in predicting post-PCNL stone-free status. Other factors not included in either scoring system may need to be incorporated in the future to increase their accuracy.

Download Full-text

A New Surgical Technique of Combination Retroperitoneal with Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy in a Single Position and Comparative Outcomes

10.21203/rs.3.rs-16359/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Liming Song ◽

Wenkuan Wang ◽

Qinxin Zhao ◽

Yuhong Wen ◽

Xiaoguang Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Surgical Technique ◽

Standard Technique ◽

Upper Urinary Tract ◽

Standard Group ◽

Surgical Trauma ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Estimated Blood Loss ◽

Significant Difference ◽

New Surgical Technique ◽

Laparoscopic Nephroureterectomy

Abstract Background The traditional surgical treatment for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) is time-consuming owing to changing the surgical position and larger surgical trauma because of open surgery in handling the distal ureter. Therefore, we created a new surgical technique of combination retroperitoneal with transperitoneal (CRT) laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) in a single position and to reported our early outcomes. Methods From January 2017 to October 2018, a total of 45 patients underwent LNU by a single surgeon at our department, of whom 25 patients underwent standard technique and 20 patients underwent CRT technique. Relevant clinical data were collected including each patient’s characteristics, surgical outcomes, and follow-up results. A comparative analysis between standard LNU cases and CRT LNU cases was performed. Results LNU was performed successfully on all 45 patients. There was no significant difference in patients’ characteristics. Compared to standard group, patients in CRT group had shorter operative time, less estimated blood loss (EBL), lower visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score and less scar ( P <0.001). The mean time of surgical drain stay decreased from 4.2d to 2.8d and median hospital stay after surgery decreased from 5d to 3d ( P <0.001). The complication rates did not show statistic difference between the two groups within the first 30 days postoperatively ( P =0.258). For the long-term complications, the incidence of abdomen bulge or incisional hernia in CRT group was less than that in the standard group ( P <0.001). Conclusion The CRT technique, which combines both the advantages of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches, is a more minimally invasive, simplified and effective way to perform the LNU.

Download Full-text