Journal of Universal Surgery

  • ISSN: 2254-6758
  • Journal h-index: 6
  • Journal CiteScore: 0.94
  • Journal Impact Factor: 0.82
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
  • J-Gate
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
  • Zenodo
Share This Page

Mini Review Article - (2023) Volume 11, Issue 2

Full Endoscopic Surgery for Thoracic Pathology: Following Step after Acing Lumbar and Cervical Endoscopic Spine Surgery

Tirilomis Theodor*
Department for Thoracic, Cardiac, and Vascular Surgery, University of Gottingen, Gottingen, Germany
*Correspondence: Tirilomis Theodor, Department for Thoracic, Cardiac, and Vascular Surgery, University of Gottingen, Gottingen, Germany, Email:

Received: 01-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. IPJUS-23-13488; Editor assigned: 02-Feb-2023, Pre QC No. IPJUS-23-13488 (PQ); Reviewed: 15-Feb-2023, QC No. IPJUS-23-13488; Revised: 21-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. IPJUS-23-13488 (R); Published: 28-Feb-2023, DOI: 10.36648/2254- 6758.


Thoracic plate herniation and stenosis are moderately uncommon, and different indications make them troublesome to analyze. Due to the complexity of neural and vascular structure, surgical treatment of thoracic pathology is challenging. Endoscopic spine surgery is an rising negligibly obtrusive surgical alternative. Based on wide involvement on the cervical and lumbar spine, an endoscopic approach for the thoracic pathology can be performed past the learning bend. Transforaminal approach for thoracic circle herniation, endoscopic one-sided approach, and reciprocal decompression for thoracic stenosis have been detailed as favourable and secure surgical alternatives. Within the display consider, the creators portrayed the nitty gritty surgical strategy as well as tips and tricks.


Endoscopic; Surgery; Pathology; Cervical; Spine


The surgical strategies within the treatment of stone disease have significantly changed within the final 20 years. There has been a noteworthy diminish within the number of patients requiring Open Renal Stone Surgery (ORSS) due to the innovative improvements within the field of urologic surgery. These Days Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) and Percutaneous Nephro Lithotomy (PNL) are prescribed as the primary line treatment modalities within the administration of renal stones < 20 mm and > 20 mm, separately. Be that as it may, ORSS has been performed in 0.47-2% in select patients. Since stone repeat rate inside 5 a long time is approximately 50%, different mediations may be required for patients with stone malady. Reoperation in patients with past Open Renal Stone Surgery (ORSS) would be troublesome due to retroperitoneal scarring around the kidney and twisting of the pelvic aliceal life systems. Inevitably, reoperation may be related with a longer agent time, higher complication, and lower victory rates [1, 2].

This think about was planned as a review controlled ponder and included patients who experienced RIRS between December 2007 and January 2015. There were 32 patients with renal stones who had past ORSS and treated with RIRS within the ponder bunch (Bunch 1). A add up to of 38 patients with renal stones who had no past ORSS and treated with RIRS were chosen as the control bunch (Bunch 2). To begin with 4-5 patients from each year (2008-2015) who were treated with RIRS but did not experience ORSS were picked out and put together to create the control gather. Patients with renal stones along with ureteral stones were also included in this consider. All patients were preoperatively assessed by CT filter with stone convention to characterize the overall stone burden and collecting framework life structures. Stone burden was calculated by measuring the most extreme stone measurement in cases with single stone or whole of measurements in cases of numerous stones. Recorded information with respect to preoperative characteristics of the patients was included [3-5].


All methods were exhausted a standard lithotomy position beneath common anesthesia. In patients with intrarenal stones and concomitant center or lower ureteral stones, a semirigid ureteroscope (8/9.8F Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was utilized to begin with for the treatment of ureteral stones. RIRS was performed by three experienced specialists (each specialist performed at slightest 100 RIRS methods) utilizing URF P-5 adaptable ureteroscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) or Cobra adaptable dual-channel ureteroscope (Richard Wolf, Knittlingen, Germany) concurring to its accessibility. A ureteral get to sheath (Flexor ureteral get to sheath 12/14F 35 cm; Cook Therapeutic, Bloomington, IN, USA) was utilized routinely in arrange to get to to the collecting framework effectively and diminish the intrarenal weight. In cases where the ureteral get to sheath or adaptable ureteroscope without get to sheath seem not be progressed due to ureteral pathologies such as ureteral stricture, a ureteral stent was embedded into the ureter and the method [6].

All investigations were performed utilizing SPSS adaptation 16.0 (Measurable Bundle for Social Sciences for windows; Chicago, IL, USA). The estimation information was communicated as cruel ± standard determination. Age, BMI, stone number, stone measure, stone burden, agent times, and hospitalization times were compared by utilizing Mann-Whitney test. Also, utilize of ureteral get to sheath and bushel catheter, inside stent arrangement, SFR, and complication rates were compared by utilizing Pearson Chi- Square test. Esteem of < 0.05 was considered measurably significant in all the cases [7].


A add up to of 41 RIRS strategies performed on 32 patients were included in gather 1. Whereas 27 of 32 (85%) patients required a single strategy, 3 (9%) patients were treated with 2 methods. Two (6%) more patients with two-sided renal stones required add up to of 8 methods (two methods for each kidney) in gather of all. On the other hand, RIRS was performed in 34 of 38 (90%) patients as a single method in bunch. Moreover second-session RIRS was performed in 2 (5%) patients, and respective RIRS was exhausted another 2 (5%) patients. As a result, add up to of 41 and 42 RIRS strategies performed on 32 and 38 patients were included in bunches 1 and 2, separately. RIRS were performed due to back torment (54%), renal colic (23%), repetitive urinary tract contaminations (11%), tireless hematuria (9%), and persistent preference (3%). Lower ureteral stones in conjunction with renal stones were display in 3 and 5 patients in bunches 1 and 2, separately. These stones were treated at the same session [8].

No major perioperative complications were seen. A few minor complications were recorded in 7 patients in each gather. Minor ureteral injury happened in 1 and 2 patients in bunches 1 and 2, individually. Intraoperative hemorrhage was seen in 1 case in each bunch. The methods were not cancelled due to intraoperative complications and the operations were completed without any trouble. Renal colic was recognized in 3 and 2 patients in bunches 1 and 2. Four patients with renal colic were treated with parenteral medicines within the crisis setting in bunches 1 and 2 (Clavien 2). On the other hand, inner stent was put in one persistent with renal colic in bunch 2 due to hydroureteronephrosis (Clavien 3b). Drawn out hematuria that endured longer than a week was seen in one persistent in each bunch and treated conservatively without any transfusion (Clavien 1). Urinary Tract Disease (UTI) was seen in one quiet in each gather. The quiet with pyelonephritis was treated with parentery conditions [9, 10].



Conflict of Interest



  1. Ho YH, Tan M, Chui CH, (1997) Randomized controlled trial of primary fistulotomy with drainage Alone for perianal abscesses. Dis Colon Rectum 40: 1435.
  2. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  3. Hall JF, Bordeianou L, Hyman N (2014) Outcomes after operations for anal fistula: results of a prospective, multicenter, regional study. Dis Colon Rectum 57: 1304.
  4. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  5. Abramowitz L, Soudan D, Souffran M (2016) the outcome of fistulotomy for anal fistula at 1 year: a prospective multicentre French study. Colorectal Dis 18: 279.
  6. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  7. Zollinger RM, Zollinger Jr RM (1983) Plate CXCVII: Drainage of ischiorectal abscess - Excision of fistula in ano. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 20: 102-109.
  8. Google Scholar, Crossref

  9. Spartalis Eleftherios, Machairas Nikolaos, Schizas Dimitrios, Patsouras Dimitrios, Spartalis Michael, et al. (2019) the role of robotics in cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Journal of Robotic Surgery 13: 41-52.
  10. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  11. Stephenson Larry W, Arbulu Agustin, Bassett Joseph S, Silbergleit Allen, Hughes Calvin H, et al. (2002) Forest Dewey Dodrill: heart surgery pioneer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 17: 247-257.
  12. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  13. Hulzebos EHJ, Smit Y Helders PPJM, Van Meeteren NLU (2012) Preoperative physical therapy for elective cardiac surgery patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11: 10118.
  14. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  15. Murtra M (2002) Effects of Growth Hormone Replacement on Parathyroid Hormone Sensitivity and Bone Mineral Metabolism. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 21: 167-180.
  16. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  17. Stark J, Gallivan S, Lovegrove J (2000) Mortality rates after surgery for congenital heart defects in children and surgeons' performance. Lancet 355: 1004-7.
  18. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

  19. Klitzner TS, Lee M, Rodriguez S, Chang RK (2006) Sex-related disparity in surgical mortality among pediatric patients. Congenit Heart Dis 1: 77-88.
  20. Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at