An initial experience with lighted ureteral catheters during laparoscopic colectomy

A. J. Senagore, M. Luchtefeld

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Ureteral catheters are recommended when a difficult pelvic dissection is anticipated to minimize the risk of ureteral injuries. With the introduction of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, it has become necessary to replace tactile with visual feedback. Lighted ureteral catheters (LUC) have been advocated for major laparoscopic pelvic surgery as a means of enhancing ureteral identification. However, the use of LUC has been anecdotal to this point. We present the first series of selectively used LUC during laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Forty-nine consecutive laparoscopic-assisted colectomies were reviewed in which patients had LUC placed or not (NC) [LUC, 24(49%); NC, 25(51%)]. Indications for catheter insertion included complicated diverticular disease, previous pelvic surgery, and obesity. The need for LUC was at the discretion of the surgeon. Data collected included catheter visualization, type of procedure, operative time, operating room cost, and catheter or ureteral complications. Catheters were visualized in 5 of 6 (83%) right colectomies and 15 of 18 (83%) left colectomies. Nonvisualization was because of migration to the bladder (2 cases) and dense inflammatory reaction (2 cases). No catheter complications or ureteral injuries occurred in either group. Operative time (LUC, 192 ± 11.3 min, NC, 161.4 ± 9.5 min) was significantly longer in the LUC group as a result of the time for catheter insertion and the greater complexity of the case. The operating room cost was similar in the two groups (LUC, $3488.63 ± 259.01; NC, $3537.56 ± 313.43). The results indicate that selected use of LUC does significantly increase operating time without significantly increasing operating room cost or operative morbidity. Therefore, it may be advantageous to reserve LUC for an anticipated difficult retroperitoneal dissection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)399-403
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Laparoendoscopic Surgery
Volume4
Issue number6
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Urinary Catheters
Colectomy
Catheters
Operating Rooms
Operative Time
Costs and Cost Analysis
Dissection
Sensory Feedback
Wounds and Injuries
Touch
Laparoscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

An initial experience with lighted ureteral catheters during laparoscopic colectomy. / Senagore, A. J.; Luchtefeld, M.

In: Journal of Laparoendoscopic Surgery, Vol. 4, No. 6, 1994, p. 399-403.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{01fb5cd640f543d2af5616af4fb4e54a,
title = "An initial experience with lighted ureteral catheters during laparoscopic colectomy",
abstract = "Ureteral catheters are recommended when a difficult pelvic dissection is anticipated to minimize the risk of ureteral injuries. With the introduction of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, it has become necessary to replace tactile with visual feedback. Lighted ureteral catheters (LUC) have been advocated for major laparoscopic pelvic surgery as a means of enhancing ureteral identification. However, the use of LUC has been anecdotal to this point. We present the first series of selectively used LUC during laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Forty-nine consecutive laparoscopic-assisted colectomies were reviewed in which patients had LUC placed or not (NC) [LUC, 24(49{\%}); NC, 25(51{\%})]. Indications for catheter insertion included complicated diverticular disease, previous pelvic surgery, and obesity. The need for LUC was at the discretion of the surgeon. Data collected included catheter visualization, type of procedure, operative time, operating room cost, and catheter or ureteral complications. Catheters were visualized in 5 of 6 (83{\%}) right colectomies and 15 of 18 (83{\%}) left colectomies. Nonvisualization was because of migration to the bladder (2 cases) and dense inflammatory reaction (2 cases). No catheter complications or ureteral injuries occurred in either group. Operative time (LUC, 192 ± 11.3 min, NC, 161.4 ± 9.5 min) was significantly longer in the LUC group as a result of the time for catheter insertion and the greater complexity of the case. The operating room cost was similar in the two groups (LUC, $3488.63 ± 259.01; NC, $3537.56 ± 313.43). The results indicate that selected use of LUC does significantly increase operating time without significantly increasing operating room cost or operative morbidity. Therefore, it may be advantageous to reserve LUC for an anticipated difficult retroperitoneal dissection.",
author = "Senagore, {A. J.} and M. Luchtefeld",
year = "1994",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "399--403",
journal = "Journal of Laparoendoscopic Surgery",
issn = "1052-3901",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An initial experience with lighted ureteral catheters during laparoscopic colectomy

AU - Senagore, A. J.

AU - Luchtefeld, M.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - Ureteral catheters are recommended when a difficult pelvic dissection is anticipated to minimize the risk of ureteral injuries. With the introduction of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, it has become necessary to replace tactile with visual feedback. Lighted ureteral catheters (LUC) have been advocated for major laparoscopic pelvic surgery as a means of enhancing ureteral identification. However, the use of LUC has been anecdotal to this point. We present the first series of selectively used LUC during laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Forty-nine consecutive laparoscopic-assisted colectomies were reviewed in which patients had LUC placed or not (NC) [LUC, 24(49%); NC, 25(51%)]. Indications for catheter insertion included complicated diverticular disease, previous pelvic surgery, and obesity. The need for LUC was at the discretion of the surgeon. Data collected included catheter visualization, type of procedure, operative time, operating room cost, and catheter or ureteral complications. Catheters were visualized in 5 of 6 (83%) right colectomies and 15 of 18 (83%) left colectomies. Nonvisualization was because of migration to the bladder (2 cases) and dense inflammatory reaction (2 cases). No catheter complications or ureteral injuries occurred in either group. Operative time (LUC, 192 ± 11.3 min, NC, 161.4 ± 9.5 min) was significantly longer in the LUC group as a result of the time for catheter insertion and the greater complexity of the case. The operating room cost was similar in the two groups (LUC, $3488.63 ± 259.01; NC, $3537.56 ± 313.43). The results indicate that selected use of LUC does significantly increase operating time without significantly increasing operating room cost or operative morbidity. Therefore, it may be advantageous to reserve LUC for an anticipated difficult retroperitoneal dissection.

AB - Ureteral catheters are recommended when a difficult pelvic dissection is anticipated to minimize the risk of ureteral injuries. With the introduction of laparoscopic-assisted colectomy, it has become necessary to replace tactile with visual feedback. Lighted ureteral catheters (LUC) have been advocated for major laparoscopic pelvic surgery as a means of enhancing ureteral identification. However, the use of LUC has been anecdotal to this point. We present the first series of selectively used LUC during laparoscopic-assisted colectomy. Forty-nine consecutive laparoscopic-assisted colectomies were reviewed in which patients had LUC placed or not (NC) [LUC, 24(49%); NC, 25(51%)]. Indications for catheter insertion included complicated diverticular disease, previous pelvic surgery, and obesity. The need for LUC was at the discretion of the surgeon. Data collected included catheter visualization, type of procedure, operative time, operating room cost, and catheter or ureteral complications. Catheters were visualized in 5 of 6 (83%) right colectomies and 15 of 18 (83%) left colectomies. Nonvisualization was because of migration to the bladder (2 cases) and dense inflammatory reaction (2 cases). No catheter complications or ureteral injuries occurred in either group. Operative time (LUC, 192 ± 11.3 min, NC, 161.4 ± 9.5 min) was significantly longer in the LUC group as a result of the time for catheter insertion and the greater complexity of the case. The operating room cost was similar in the two groups (LUC, $3488.63 ± 259.01; NC, $3537.56 ± 313.43). The results indicate that selected use of LUC does significantly increase operating time without significantly increasing operating room cost or operative morbidity. Therefore, it may be advantageous to reserve LUC for an anticipated difficult retroperitoneal dissection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028559741&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028559741&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 7881143

AN - SCOPUS:0028559741

VL - 4

SP - 399

EP - 403

JO - Journal of Laparoendoscopic Surgery

JF - Journal of Laparoendoscopic Surgery

SN - 1052-3901

IS - 6

ER -