Laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal repair of retrocaval ureter: A comparison of the surgical outcomes from two centres with a comprehensive literature review

Mustafa Temiz, Brusabhanu Nayak, Serdar Aykan, Prabhjot Singh, Aykut Colakerol, Atilla Semercioz, Ahmet Muslumanoglu

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


The use of minimally invasive surgical approaches for the repair of retrocaval ureter (RCU) has been increased in time. However, the results of the robotic approach have not yet been compared with those of open or laparoscopic approaches. We aimed to compare the results of laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal repair of RCU from two centres. Patients and Methods: Initially, we performed a systemic literature search using MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar about the RCU. Finally, a comparison of the efficacy and outcomes of the laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal approaches for RCU repair was performed with the results of two centers. Results: The mean age was 27.5 ± 3.6 years. The mean operative time was 147 ± 63.6 min. The median estimated blood loss was 100 (20-423.9) ml. The median drain removing time and hospital stay were 2 (2-3) and 3 (2-4) days, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 17.85 ± 14.6 months. All of the parameters were similar between the laparoscopic and robotic repair groups except for the mean operative time. It was significantly shorter in robotic repair group than those of laparoscopic repair group (P = 0.02). Furthermore, a ureteral stricture of the anastomotic segment was detected in a patient treated with laparoscopy during the follow-up. Conclusions: Robotic transperitoneal approach may shorten the operative time enabling a greater comfort in repair of RCU.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)115-120
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Minimal Access Surgery
Issue number2
StatePublished - Apr 1 2020

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this