Diagnosis and laparoscopic management of retrocaval ureter: A review of the literature and our case series

Highlights

• •

  The main advantage of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of retrocaval ureter is less blood loss during surgery.

• •

  Other advantages are shorter hospital stay, less postoperative pain and superior esthetic results.

• •

  Pure laparoscopic treatment (as in our two cases) seems feasible and technically reliable with excellent functional outcome.

• •

  Intracorporeal anastomosis of the ureter remains the main limiting factor.

Abstract

Objectives

To expose the diagnosis and the different laparoscopic approaches for the surgical management of patients with retrocaval ureter (RCU) and to share our experience on two cases.

Methods

Updated literature review on Pubmed and debating personal experiences including ours (double j stent insertion before the surgery, use of 4 trocards, transperitoneal approach, pyelopyelostomy for the anastomosis…), concerning the laparoscopic treatment of the RCU.

Results

Laparoscopic treatment of RCU is a recommended management for many reasons: less blood loss during the surgery, a shorter hospital stay, less postoperative pain and superior esthetic results with excellent functional results. All of these findings were also a part of our experience on the two reported cases: operative time was 210 and 180 min with no significant bleeding, hospital stay was 48 h post operatively for both patients that were symptom free with no renal dilation after 2 years of close follow up. The main cause of the increased operating time is the intracorporeal anastomosis of the ureter which remains the main limiting factor of the laparoscopic surgery.

Conclusions

The literature review has clearly shown the advantages of minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of retrocaval ureter. Pure laparoscopic treatment (as in our two cases), seems feasible and technically reliable, and should be the standard surgical option for the treatment of RCU.