Objective: To retrospectively analyses our initial cases undergoing laparoscopic surgery in Van Regional Training and Research Hospital.
Material and Methods: We performed va-rious laparoscopic surgery 25 patients (16 male, 9 female) between September 2013 and January 2015 in our department. Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, perioperative and postopera-tive complications and follow-up were evaluated.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 38.6 (2-69) years. . The indications for surgery were non-functional kidney in 11 patients, renal cyst in 7 patients, , ureteral stone in 3 patients, nonpalpabl testis in 3 patients and UPJ obstructi-on in 1 patient. All laparoscopic ureterolithotomy were performed retroperitoneally. Other lapa-roscopic interventions were performed transpe-ritoneally. The mean operative time was 97.6 (20-150) minutes. The mean hospital stay was 3.2 (1-6) days. The mean length of follow-up was 8.41 (1-16) months. Open surgery conversion was in-dicated only the one patient due to stone migrati-on, who was performed ureterolithotomy. None of the patients did not require blood transfusion. No peroperative and postoperative complication was observed
Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgey is a prefe-rable method than open surgery with the shorter hospital stay, the less postoperative pain relief and the more favourable cosmetic results. We believe that, the laparoscopic surgery does not only third step hospital, but also can apply successfully in the second step hospital.
Key Words: Laparoscopic surgery, urology, learning process.
Abstract
Objective: To retrospectively analyses our initial cases undergoing laparoscopic surgery in Van Regional Training and Research Hospital.
Material and Methods: We performed va-rious laparoscopic surgery 25 patients (16 male, 9 female) between September 2013 and January 2015 in our department. Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, perioperative and postopera-tive complications and follow-up were evaluated.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 38.6 (2-69) years. . The indications for surgery were non-functional kidney in 11 patients, renal cyst in 7 patients, , ureteral stone in 3 patients, nonpalpabl testis in 3 patients and UPJ obstructi-on in 1 patient. All laparoscopic ureterolithotomy were performed retroperitoneally. Other lapa-roscopic interventions were performed transpe-ritoneally. The mean operative time was 97.6 (20-150) minutes. The mean hospital stay was 3.2 (1-6) days. The mean length of follow-up was 8.41 (1-16) months. Open surgery conversion was in-dicated only the one patient due to stone migrati-on, who was performed ureterolithotomy. None of the patients did not require blood transfusion. No peroperative and postoperative complication was observed
Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgey is a prefe-rable method than open surgery with the shorter hospital stay, the less postoperative pain relief and the more favourable cosmetic results. We believe that, the laparoscopic surgery does not only third step hospital, but also can apply successfully in the second step hospital.
Key Words: Laparoscopic surgery, urology, learning process.