Home > Journals > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 February;71(1) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 February;71(1):9-16

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 February;71(1):9-16

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03235-6

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Retroperitoneoscopy in urology: a systematic review

Riccardo LOMBARDO 1 , Raul MARTOS 2, Maria J. RIBAL 2, Antonio ALCARAZ 2, Andrea TUBARO 1, Cosimo DE NUNZIO 1

1 Department of Urology, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy; 2 Department of Urology, Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain



INTRODUCTION: In the past years, several authors have focused on the role of retroperitoneoscopic laparoscopy in the treatment of urological diseases. Aim of our study is to systematically review the available literature on retro-peritoneoscopic laparoscopy in urology.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until June 2018 was performed using both the Medical Subjects Heading and free test protocols. The MeSH search was conducted by combining the following terms: “retroperitoneoscopy,” “posterior laparoscopy,” “retroperitoneoscopic.” Only randomized clinical trials were included in the analysis. Risk of bias assessment and forest plots were used to summarize data.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Nine RCTs on simple, partial and radical nephrectomy, pyeloplasty, ureterolithotomy and nephrolithotomy comparing RP to other techniques were included in the analysis. Retroperitoneoscopic approach in simple or radical nephrectomy is to be considered a valid alternative to transperitoneal laparoscopic approach. Outcomes and safety profiles (6-8% conversion rate) are similar and the approach depends on surgeon’s preferences. Randomized studies analyzing retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty showed better results in terms of perioperative morbidity (tramadol use: 147 vs. 179 mg, P=0.002) and return to normal activities when compared to either anterior laparoscopic either to minimally invasive open approach. Two randomized studies have confirmed the efficacy (stone-free rate: 94%) and safety (no Clavien-Dindo >II complications) of ureterolithotomy and nephrolithotomy (stone-free rate: 95%) in the management of large renal and ureteral stones.
CONCLUSIONS: Retroperitoneoscopic approach in urological diseases is a valid alternative to the anterior approach. Evidence suggest lower morbidity for the retroperitoneoscopic approach however technical complexity may limit its widespread.


KEY WORDS: Laparoscopy - Retroperitoneal space - Systematic review

top of page