Table 1.
Summary of all reported cases of retrocaval ureter managed by mini invasive approach (PU = pyeloureteral, UU = ureteroureteral; NA = not available; PP = pyeloplasty, Lap = laparoscopic).
| Year | Study | Number of cases | Approach | Anastomosis | Complications | Operative Time (min) | Follow-up (month) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994 | Baba et al. [36] | 1 | Laparoscopic transperitoneal | PU | No | 560 | 2 |
| 1996 | Matsuda et al. [38] | 1 | Laparoscopic transperitoneal | UU | No | 450 | Not reported |
| 1997 | Ishitoya et al. [16] | 1 | Laparoscopic transperitoneal | UU mini laparotomy | No | 365 | 2 |
| 1998 | Polascik et al. [44] | 1 | Laparoscopic transperitoneal | UU | No | 225 | 4 |
| 1999 | Salomon et al. [29] | 1 | Retroperitoneo-scopic | UU | No | 270 | 6 |
| 1999 | Mugiya et al. [39] | 1 | Retroperitoneoscopic | Automatic suture device | Not reported | 300 | Not reported |
| 2001 | Ameda et al. [34] | 1 | Transteritoneal | UU | No | 450 | 3 |
| 1 | Retroperitoneal | UU | No | 400 | 3 | ||
| 2001 | Gupta et al. [32] | 1 | Retroperitoneal | UU | No | 210 | 3 |
| 2003 | Ramalingam et al. [37] | 1 | Transperitoneal | UU | No | 240 | 7 |
| 1 | Transperitoneal | UU | Ileus | 210 | 6 | ||
| 2003 | Bhandarkar et al. [35] | 1 | Lap Transperitoneal | PP | NA | 250 | 14 |
| 2005 | Tobias-Machado et al. [41] | 1 | Lap Retroperitoneal | UU(extracorporeal) | No | 130 | 3 |
| 2006 | Simforoosh et al. [28] | 3 | Lap Transperitoneal | PP | No | 180 (150–210) | 3 |
| 3 | |||||||
| 2006 | Nagraj et al. [45] | 1 | Lap Transperitoneal | UU | No | 100 | Not reported |
| 2006 | Guntedi et al. [43] | 1 | Robotic Transperitoneal | UU | No | 180 | 6 |
| 2008 | Chung and Gill [46] | 1 | Lap Transperitoneal | PP | No | 180 | 6 |
| 2008 | Hemal et al. [42] | 1 | Robotic transperitoneal | PU | No | Not reported | 3 |
| 2009 | Bagheri et al. [58] | 3 | Lap Transperitoneal | UU | No | 210 (mean) | 12 |
| 2009 | Xu et al. [47] | 7 | Retroperitoneoscopic | UU | No | 128.6 (97–189) | 12 |
| 2010 | Autorino et al. [48] | 1 | Trasperitoneal LESS | UU | No | 180 | 3 |
| 2012 | Nayak et al. [49] | 5 | Robotic transperitoneal | UU and PU | No | 92 (mean) | 13.5 (mean) |
| 2012 | Alkhudair et al. [50] | 1 | Robotic transperitoneal | UU | No | 90 | 3 |
| 2012 | Ding et al. [51] | 6 | Lap Transpertitonal | UU | No | 163 (145–178) | 3–30 |
| 2013 | Junior et al. [52] | 1 | Lap Transperitoneal | PU | No | 210 | 6 |
| 2014 | Ji et al. [53] | 18 | 8 Lap Trans | UU | No | Trans:85 ± 20 | 40 ± 24 |
| 10 Lap Retro | Retro :98 ± 30 | ||||||
| 2015 | Ricciardulli et al. [54] | 27 | Lap Transperitoneal | UU | 4 cases | 131 (mean) | 3, 6 and 12 |
| 2016 | El Harrech et al. [55] | 3 | Lap Transperitoneal | PP | No | 140 (110–190) | Every 3 |
| 2016 | Fidalgo et al. [56] | 1 | Lap Transperitoneal | PU | No | 170 | 3 |
| 2017 | Lijun Mao et al. [57] | 6 | Lap Retroperitoneal | PU | No | 112 (median) | 6–24 |