Open Ureterolithotomy Via Lumbotomy Incision vs Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Upper Ureteric Calculi

Main Article Content

Chaiyong Nualyong


To compare the efficacy and morbidity of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and open ureterolithotomy via the posterior lumbar approach.
Meterials and Methods : A retrospective study was performed by reviewing patient records. Ten patients in the laparoscopic ureterolithotomy group were compared with 15 patients in the open ureterolithotomy via lumbotomy incision group. Twelve patients who had flank ureterolithotomy comprised a control group. Details of age, sex, size and site of the stone, haematocrit, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, degree of hydronephrosis of the affected kidney, contralateral renal function, operative time, operative complication, the amount of postoperative analgesics and length of hospital stay were all compared. Statistical analysis was carried out by the Chi- square test, Anova and LSD multiple comparisons.
Results : The preoperative status of the three groups were similar. When the ureterolithotomy via lumbotomy group was compared with the control group (flank ureterolithotomy) the results were similar except that ureterolithotomy via lumbotomy required less analgesics postoperatively (mean 50 mg vs 104, p < 0.001). Ureterolithotomy via lumbotomy patients required the same analgesics as laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. However, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy had a longer operating time (mean 181.5 min vs 88, p < 0.001) and longer period of urine leak postoperatively (mean 6.6 days vs 2.4, p < 0.003) when compared with ureterolithotomy via lumbotomy.
Conclusion : Ureterolithotomy via lumbotomy offers similar low discomfort postoperatively compared with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy but had a shorter operating time and less complications.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Nualyong, C. . (1999). Open Ureterolithotomy Via Lumbotomy Incision vs Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy for Upper Ureteric Calculi. Siriraj Medical Journal, 51(5), 332–336. Retrieved from
Original Article