Ureteral injury and injury sickness is a phenomenal however horrible condition that regularly requires complex ureteral reproduction as treatment.1 A conclusive careful alternative for fix of ureteral hindrance is ureteroneocystostomy, which verifiably was performed through an open methodology with amazing achievement rates.2 With the accessibility of negligibly intrusive procedures, laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy has been portrayed as a practical way to deal with overseeing ureteral reconstruction.3,4 Studies exhibit that this methodology is related with an advantage regarding hospitalization length, intraoperative blood misfortune, and opiate torment solution while conveying no expanded entanglements contrasted and the open approach. Mechanical ureteroneocystostomy has acquired ubiquity over a standard laparoscopic approach for ureteral medical procedure because of more prominent perceivability, mobility, skill, specialist ergonomics, and simplicity of intracorporeal suturing. Few investigations exist contrasting the results of automated ureteroneocystostomy and an open approach.8 We tried to think about the intraoperative and postoperative course of patients who went through ureteroneocystostomy by means of automated versus an open methodology. Numerous components can impact a patient’s application for mechanical medical procedure. We additionally looked to analyze those open careful patients without a background marked by complex open intraperitoneal medical procedure with automated medical procedure patients.
Reference link- https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/end.2019.0715
