scholarly journals TO EVALUATE EFFICACY OF LAPAROSCOPIC TRANSPERITONEAL PYELOLITHOTOMY FOR MANAGEMENT OF RENAL PELVIC STONES IN TERM OF POSTOPERATIVE HOSPITAL STAY

2022 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivek Mohan ◽  
Ankit Panwar ◽  
Bharat Thakur ◽  
Ved Kumar Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Normal Activity ◽  
Postoperative Hospital Stay ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Early Return ◽  
Gandhi Medical College ◽  
Laparoscopic Transperitoneal ◽  
Return To Activity

Background: To evaluate efficacy of laparoscopic transperitoneal pyelolithotomy for management of renal pelvic stones in term of postoperative hospital stay Methods: This study has been conducted in the Department of General surgery, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla on selected patients of Renal pelvis stones admitted in institution Results: Mean hospital stay was 6.66 days in laparoscopic group and it was 8 days in laparoscopic completed by open method. Maximum no. of patients was discharged within 5 days.  6 (75 %) patients returned to normal activity in less than 30 days which included only successful laparoscopic group and 2 patients returned to normal activity in 40 days which included lap completed by open group. Conclusion: In the present study of Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Pyelolithotomy at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, the procedure showed a definite decrease hospital stay, early return to activity than who have undergone open surgery Keywords: Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Pyelolithotomy, Pelvic stone, Hospital stay.

scholarly journals Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes in Open and Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy with Modified Ureterosigmoidostomy (MainzII): A Retrospective Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Zhang ◽  
Yang He ◽  
Duo Zheng ◽  
Junyao Liu ◽  
Peng Qi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Radical Cystectomy ◽  
Urinary Diversion ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Postoperative Hospital Stay ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss

Abstract Background: To analyze perioperative conditions and long-term efficacy of open modified ureterosigmoidostomy urinary diversion (OMUUD) in patients with bladder cancer who underwent open radical cystectomy (ORC) and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC).Methods: In this retrospective study, the clinical data of patients who underwent open and laparoscopic radical cystectomy plus open modified ureterosigmoidostomy urinary diversion in our hospital were collected from January 2011 to December 2019. In addition, perioperative data of 56 patients who underwent ORC and OMUUD were compared with those of 118 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) plus OMUUD. A long-term follow-up was performed to compare the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) rate between the two groups.Results: Results showed that there was no significant difference between ORC+OMUUD group and LRC+OMUUD group in terms of gender, age, body index, pre-operative ASA grade, history of transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) before surgery, tumor T stage, lymph node dissection range, pathological grade, and positive postoperative surgical margin. The mean operation time in the open group was shorter than that in the laparoscopic group （P<0.001）. Moreover, the estimated intraoperative blood loss（P<0.001）and postoperative hospital stay（P=0.023）were better in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. The incidence of complications between 30 days (P=0.665) and 90 days (P=0.211) time-points after surgery was not significantly different. Similarly, the OS (P=0.237) and PFS (P=0.307) between the two groups were comparable.Conclusion: This study shows that the LRC group has long operation time, but less estimated intraoperative blood loss, short postoperative hospital stay, small trauma, and fast postoperative recovery compared to open surgery. Moreover, the incidence of complications at 30 - and 90-days postoperation, as well as the OS and PFS is not different between laparoscopy and open surgery.

Reduced Pain, Shorter Hospital Stay And Early Return To Work In Pcnl: Comparative Study On Outcome Of Pcnl Versus Open Surgery In The Treatment Of Large Renal Calculi

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
Syed Al Fasani ◽  
Akm Zamanul Islam Bhuiyan
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Renal Calculi ◽  
Postoperative Hospital Stay ◽  
P Value ◽  
Early Return ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Duration Of Surgery

Objective: To compare the outcome of PCNL & open surgery in the treatment of large renal calculi by assesing the amount of analgesia required to relief pain, mean hospital stay, & convalescence period. Materials & Methods: : This comparative study in during 80 patients diagnosed with kidney stone disease admitted in the NIKDU during the period of Jan’ to Dec’2009. They were divided conveniently into two groups. Intervention was done in the formPCNL(40) and open surgery (40). Clinical outcome like, duration of surgery, postoperative hospital stay,doses of narcotic analgesia required to relief pain and convalescence periodwere reviewed. In complete follow up 9 patients were missed in PCNL group resulting in 31 patients. There was no significant difference in preoperative variables such as age,sex, stone size in cm, stone number- single/multiple and stag horn Stone. Results : There were statistically significant difference in the parameters between the groups,( PCNL vs open surgery [mean ± SD]): duration of operation (min), 97.90 ± 24.89 vs 136.62 ± 23.54, postoperative hospital stay (days) ,4.77 ± 3.98 vs 9.55 ± 3.65, mean time return to work (days) , 3.09 ± 1.21vs 6.25 ± 1.53, ( p value is <0.001). The amount of analgesia required to relief pain was significantly reduced in PCNL vs open procedure ( no patient required > 2 doses vs 27 patient required 3 or >3 doses ), p value is <0.001. Conclusion: PCNL is relatively safe & better treatment option than open surgery in the treatment of large renal calculi. It has reduced pain, shorter hospital stay and more rapid return to work. Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 16, No. 1, Jan 2013 p.16-20

scholarly journals Outcome comparison study between laparoscopic appendisectomy and conventional open appendisectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 1520
Author(s):  
Mimamaychet B. Sangma ◽  
Selvakumaran Selvaraju ◽  
Pratheeba Natarajan ◽  
Fremingston Marak ◽  
Simon David Dasiah
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Significant Finding ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Early Return ◽  
Outcome Comparison ◽  
Gandhi Medical College

Background: Open appendisectomy (OA) had been the procedure of choice for acute appendisectomy for a century since Mc Burney introduced in 1884. Laprascopic appendisectomy (LA) didn’t gain popularity and many studies had been conducted to see the superiority of one over the other. Recent meta-analysis studies, found overall benefits in favour of LA. So, we have done comparative study with the aim to compare the benefits of LA over OA.Methods: Total of 90 appendisectomies was done, 45 each in OA and LA group and compared over a period of 1-year from October 2016 to October 2017 in Indira Gandhi Medical College and RI, Pondicherry. Outcome parameters were compared between the 2-groups in relation to operative time, analgesia used, length of post-operative hospital stay, return to work, resumption of a regular diet, post-operative scar and post-operative complications.Results: Mean age of LA was 35 years, OA was 30 years. Male preponderance observed in OA (67%), female in LA (60%). Post-operative short hospital stay was 3-days in LA, 5-days in OA. Early return to work was 9-days in LA, 15-days in OA. Operative time was significantly shorter in LA which was 30-minutes and 40-minutes in OA. In laprascopic group, no complications was observed, in open group we had two post-operative infections.Conclusions: LA is an effective and safe option and the procedure of choice for most patients regardless of age, sex and BMI, with a statistically significant finding in regards to operation time in LA compared to conventional OA group.

scholarly journals TO EVALUATE COMPLICATION OF LAPAROSCOPIC TRANSPERITONEAL PYELOLITHOTOMY FOR MANAGEMENT OF RENAL PELVIC STONES

2022 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bharat Thakur ◽  
Ankit Panwar ◽  
Shivek Mohan ◽  
Ved Kumar Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Renal Pelvis ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Gandhi Medical College ◽  
Laparoscopic Transperitoneal ◽  
Antipyretic Medication

Background: To evaluate complication of laparoscopic transperitoneal pyelolithotomy for management of renal pelvic stones Methods: This study has been conducted in the Department of General surgery, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla on selected patients of Renal pelvis stones admitted in institution Results: There were no major postoperative complications. Two patient developed mild low grade fever which subsided on oral antipyretic medication. One patient had a cough and one patient had ileus. Conclusion: We concluded that there were no major intraoperative or postoperative complications were seen in our study. Keywords: Laparoscopic Transperitoneal Pyelolithotomy, Pelvic stone, Complication

scholarly journals A retrospective study on laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 1144
Author(s):  
P. Senthil Kumar ◽  
S. Edwin Kin’s Raj ◽  
Saranya Nagalingam
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Daily Activities ◽  
Early Return

Background: Appendectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in emergency surgery. Open appendectomy is the “gold standard” for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy though widely practiced has not gained universal approval. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a retrospective study.Methods: The study was done as a retrospective study among 387 patients diagnosed with appendicitis for a period of 18 months in the Dept of General Surgery. All patients included were 16 years and above and followed up for 3 weeks. In this study, 130 patients diagnosed as acute appendicitis - underwent open appendectomy and 257 patients diagnosed as sub-acute cases of appendicitis - underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. These two groups (open & laparoscopic) were compared for operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate, early return to normal activity.Results: Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter hospital stay (around 4.5 days), with a less need for analgesia and with an early return to daily activities (around 11.5 days). Operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (35 mins), when compared with laparoscopic group (around 59 mins). Total number of complications was less in the Laparoscopic group with a significantly lower incidence of post-op pain and complications.Conclusions: The laparoscopic approach is a safe and efficient operative procedure and it provides clinically beneficial advantages over open appendectomy (including shorter hospital stay, an early return to daily activities and less post-op complications).

scholarly journals Evaluation of Outcome Between Excisional Haemorrhoidectomy and Longo's Technique (PPH)

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Md Atiar Rahman ◽  
Md Shahidul Lslam ◽  
Md Shahadot Hossain Sheikh ◽  
Md Ibrahim Siddique ◽  
Md Ahsan Ullah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Normal Activity ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Anal Stenosis ◽  
Recurrent Prolapse ◽  
Time Frequency ◽  
Early Return ◽  
Rapid Healing

Objective: The introduction of a Longo’s technique for the treatment of haemorrhoids has the potential for less postoperative pain, a short operating time, rapid healing and an early return to full activity. The outcome of Longo’s technique was compared with that of current standard surgery in a randomized controlled study, and followed up two years. Methods: In a prospective randomized study, 140 patients requiring surgical treatment for haemorrhoids grade 2, 3 and 4 were assigned to either MMF (Milligan-Morgan, Park Ferguson) or PPH (Procedure for prolapse and haemorrhoids) 70 each. Operating time, frequency of postoperative analgesic intake, hospital stay, time to return to normal activity and postoperative complications were also recorded. Results: The Longo’s group had a shorter operating time, less frequent postoperative analgesia intake, and earlier return to normal activity. Postoperative pain at rest and during defecation was less important after PPH if no resection of external piles or skin tags was associated. After a mean follow-up of 24 months (12-46), recurrent haemorrhoidal symptoms, mostly mild and temporary, were reported after both MMF and PPH (Table-3). Four patients (5.71 %) complained of recurrent prolapse and/or external swelling after PPH, requiring re-do surgery in 3 of them between 18 to 32 months. Recurrent prolapse or external piles were also observed in 5 patients (7.14%) after MMF and re-do surgery was needed in 3 of them between 14 and 41 months. Long term patient's satisfaction after PPH was more or less same like after MMF. None of the patients had anal stenosis, incontinence, fecal urgency or sepsis. Conclusions: Postoperative pain is less after PPH. This advantage disappears if any resection is associated with the stapling. Use of a Longo's technique in the treatment of haemorrhoidal disease promotes rapid healing, shorter hospital stay and early return to normal activities. Journal of Surgical Sciences (2013) Vol. 17 (2) :66-72

scholarly journals Three Years Experience of Bilateral Simultaneous Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy – A Single Center Study in Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Vol I (2) ◽  
pp. 31-34
Author(s):  
Shakeel Haseeb Uddin Siddique
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Data Entry ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Renal Calculi ◽  
Normal Activity ◽  
Transfusion Rate ◽  
Early Return ◽  
The Mean

Objective To study the outcomes of simultaneous bilateral PCNLs in adult population and discussing therapeutical benefits and complications. Design A Retrospective Study. Setting The Kidney Centre ( The Post Graduate Training Institute, Karachi). Duration of Study Three years from January 2017 to December 2019. Methodology A retrospective chart review at one of the large urology institute in Karachi was conducted. The aim was to document the demographics, operation dynamics, outcomes and complications of simultaneous bilateral PCNL in adult population. Record of 60 patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral PCNL between January 2017 and December 2019 in our hospital were evaluated. Preoperative, post-operative laboratory values, operative time, stone clearance, complications and hospital stay were recorded. SPSS IBM version 20 was used for data entry and analysis. Results The mean age was 40.0±15.1 years. The mean hospital stay was 3.5 days and mean operative time was 144 minutes. The transfusion rate was observed 16.7% and infracostal approach was most frequently used approach. Conclusion Simultaneous bilateral PCNL is a safe, efficacious, and cost-effective option in cases of bilateral renal calculi and should be considered an acceptable treatment option for patients with bilateral stones due to low morbidity, overall short hospital stays, comparable stone free rates, cost effectiveness and early return-to-normal activity time.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers without omental patch versus conventional open surgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 927
Author(s):  
Vaibhav Srivastava ◽  
Gyanendra Singh ◽  
Santosh K. Singh
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Open Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Peptic Ulcers ◽  
Omental Patch ◽  
Operative Complications ◽  
Repair Group

Background: Perforation of peptic ulcer usually presents as an acute abdomen. Nearly one third of the patients have no history of the disease. Laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive technique, has recently begun to be used on perforated peptic ulcers effectively and frequently. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety and outcome of laparoscopic surgery without omental patch for perforated ulcers in comparison with conventional open surgery.Methods: All patients diagnosed clinically with perforated peptic ulcers presenting within 24 hours of symptoms and undergoing surgery under a single surgeon during 1-year interval were included in this study and randomly assigned to laparoscopic and open repair group. Patients who had to be converted from laparoscopic surgery to open surgery, were excluded.Results: A total of 69 patients were included in this study. Number of doses of analgesics required in laparoscopic group was 9.48 ± 1.82, while those required in conventional open group was 18.16±2.24. In laparoscopic duodenal perforation repair group, duration of hospital stay (in days) was 8.42±1.44 as compared to 12.08±4.82 in open repair group. Laparoscopic group had significantly fewer post-operative complications but had longer mean operative time (101.90 minutes compared to 60.32 minutes in open repair group).Conclusions: Laparoscopic closure of perforated duodenal ulcer is a simple and safe procedure in experienced hands. It maintains the benefits of the minimally invasive approach. It is associated with longer operating time, less postoperative pain, less post-operative complications, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and earlier returns to normal daily activities.

scholarly journals Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1004
Author(s):  
Santoshkumar N. Deshmukh ◽  
Hirav P. Parikh
Keyword(s):  
Duodenal Ulcer ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Perforated Duodenal Ulcer ◽  
Analgesic Requirement ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Open Versus ◽  
Laparoscopic Techniques

Background: Surgery is the mainstay of the treatment for perforated duodenal ulcer by closing the perforation with or without omental patch. There are no controversies in the surgical treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer but the best approach to surgery is still debatable. Advances in minimal access surgery has made it possible to close the perforated duodenal ulcer laparoscopically. The present study was conducted to compare the results of open and laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer in terms of operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and post-operative complications etc.Methods: The study was conducted in Dr. V. M. Government Medical College and Hospital located in Solapur (Maharashtra) from December 2008 to December 2010. It was a prospective comparative study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups alternately where group A and B were operated by conventional and laparoscopic techniques respectively and their outcomes were compared.Results: Most commonly affected age in this study was 51 to 60 years with male preponderance. Post-operative pain, analgesic requirement, wound infection, hospital stay, was significantly less in laparoscopic group as compared to open group (p<0.05).Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and feasible in properly selected patients and has superior results as compared to open surgery.

scholarly journals RETROPERITONEAL LAPAROSCOPIC PYELOLITHOTOMY IN RENAL PELVIC STONE VERSUS OPEN SURGERY - A COMPARATIVE STUDY

2018 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-91
Author(s):  
Rikki Singal ◽  
Siddharth Dhar
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Urinary Stone ◽  
Stone Disease ◽  
Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group B

Background. The introduction of endourological procedures such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureterorenoscopy have led to a revolution in the the management of urinary stone disease. The indications for open stone surgery have been narrowed significantly, making it a second- or third-line treatment option.Aims and Objectives. To study the safety and efficacy of retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy in retroperitoneal renal stone. We compared the results of laparoscopic and open surgery in terms of easy accessibility, operative period, renal injuries, and early recovery.Methods. This prospective study was conducted on renal pelvic stone cases from January 2009 to February 2016 in Suchkhand Hospital, Agra, India. The study included a total of 1700 cases with the diagnosis of solitary renal pelvic stones. In group A - 850 cases - retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy was performed, while group B - 850 cases – underwent open pyelolithotomy.Results. The mean operative time was less in group B than group A (74.83 min vs. 94.43 min) which was significant (p<0.001).The blood loss was less in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (63 mL vs. 103mL). There were statistically significant differences in the post-operative pain scores, and postoperative complications compared to group B (p<0.001). The mean hospital stay was less in group A (p<0.03), which was significant.Conclusion. Laparoscopic surgery reduces analgesic requirements, hospital stay, and blood loss. The disadvantages include the reduced working space, the cost of equipment and the availability of a trained surgeon.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document