Systematic Review
Laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation (LEVUR): a systematic review
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation is a feasible method for treating ureteral pathology with good preliminary results in the literature. In this study, we review medium term results for laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation and discuss current developments of this procedure.
Methods: Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant key terms to identify reports of paediatric laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation (LEVUR). Literature reviews, case reports, series of <3 children and adult studies (age >20 years) were excluded.
Results: Five studies were assessed, overall, 69 LEVUR were performed in children. Despite different surgical technique, in all case the technique was respected. Patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, radiological imaging, complications, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Median success rate was 96%. Complications were reported in five cases.
Conclusions: This study is limited by the data given in the individual series: varied criteria used for patient selection and outcome as well as inconsistent pre- and post-operative imaging data precluded a meta-analysis. But it demonstrates that the laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation is an effective procedure with good medium-term results. We believe that in well selected patients this procedure will become an established treatment option.
Methods: Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant key terms to identify reports of paediatric laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation (LEVUR). Literature reviews, case reports, series of <3 children and adult studies (age >20 years) were excluded.
Results: Five studies were assessed, overall, 69 LEVUR were performed in children. Despite different surgical technique, in all case the technique was respected. Patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, radiological imaging, complications, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Median success rate was 96%. Complications were reported in five cases.
Conclusions: This study is limited by the data given in the individual series: varied criteria used for patient selection and outcome as well as inconsistent pre- and post-operative imaging data precluded a meta-analysis. But it demonstrates that the laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation is an effective procedure with good medium-term results. We believe that in well selected patients this procedure will become an established treatment option.
