Urology Annals
About UA | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionLogin 
Urology Annals
  Editorial Board | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact
Users Online: 648   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 324-329

Transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of retrocaval ureter: Our experience and review of literature

Department of Urology, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Abhishek J Savalia
Department of Urology, Room No. 219, 2nd Floor, College Building, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital, Sion, Mumbai - 400 022, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_52_17

PMID: 29118532

Rights and Permissions

Context and Aim: Retrocaval ureter (RCU), also known as circumcaval ureter, occurs due to anomalous development of inferior vena cava (IVC) and not ureter. The surgical approach for this entity has shifted from open to laparoscopic and robotic surgery. This is a relatively new line of management with very few case reports. Herein, we describe the etiopathology, our experience with six cases of transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of RCU operated at tertiary care center in India and have reviewed different management options. Methods: From 2013 to 2016, we operated total six cases of transperitoneal laparoscopic repair of RCU. All were male patients with average age of 29.6 years (14–50). Pain was their only complaint with normal renal function and no complications. After diagnosis with CT Urography, they underwent radionuclide scan and were operated on. Postoperative follow-up was done with ultrasonography every 3 months and repeat radionuclide scan at 6 months. The maximum follow-up was for 2.5 years. Results: All cases were completed laparoscopically. Average operating time was 163.2 min. Blood loss varied from 50 to 100 cc. Ureteroureterostomy was done in all patients. None developed urinary leak or recurrent obstruction postoperatively. Maximum time for the requirement of external drainage was for 4 days (2-4 days). Average postoperative time for hospitalization was 3.8 days. Follow-up ultrasound and renal scan showed unobstructed drainage. Conclusions: Transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach can be considered equivalent as parameters like operative time, results are comparable for these two modalities. We preferred transperitoneal approach as it provides good working space for intracorporeal suturing.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded542    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal