MP42-13 ROBOTIC NON-TRANSECTING URETERAL REIMPLANTATION: A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP42-13 ROBOTIC NON-TRANSECTING URETERAL REIMPLANTATION: A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE Brian Chao, David Strauss, Matthew Lee, Teona Iarajuli, Jennifer Nguyen, Ashley Alford, Michael Stifelman, Daniel Eun, and Lee Zhao Brian ChaoBrian Chao More articles by this author , David StraussDavid Strauss More articles by this author , Matthew LeeMatthew Lee More articles by this author , Teona IarajuliTeona Iarajuli More articles by this author , Jennifer NguyenJennifer Nguyen More articles by this author , Ashley AlfordAshley Alford More articles by this author , Michael StifelmanMichael Stifelman More articles by this author , Daniel EunDaniel Eun More articles by this author , and Lee ZhaoLee Zhao More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003280.13AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Robotic non-transecting ureteroneocystostomy (reimplantation) is an efficacious alternative to conventional reimplantation for mid- to distal ureteral strictures. We sought to update our multi-institutional experience with this technique and analyze intermediate-term outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a multi-institutional database of robotic ureteral reconstruction (CORRUS, or Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery) for patients undergoing robotic non-transecting reimplantation. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data were captured and reported using descriptive statistics. The primary outcome of interest was freedom from recurrent ureteral stenosis, defined as the absence of obstructive findings on follow-up imaging. Minimum follow-up duration for inclusion was three months. RESULTS: We identified 50 patients (comprising 55 ureters) who underwent robotic non-transecting ureteroneocystostomy between 2016 and 2022. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data are shown in the accompanying Table 1. Median stricture length was 2.8 cm (IQR 1–4). 17 patients (34%) had a history of radiation and 28 (56%) had prior abdominal or pelvic surgeries. 15 patients (30%) failed endoscopic stricture management; three (6%) failed prior reconstructive attempts. There was one intraoperative complication, a gastric injury repaired primarily by general surgery without subsequent sequelae. There were no immediate (≤30 days) postoperative complications. Over a median follow-up of 17.1 months (7.2–32.0), 47 patients (94%) comprising 52 ureters (95%) remained free from recurrent stricture disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our updated experience reaffirms the safety and efficacy of robotic non-transecting ureteral reimplantation. Despite a high proportion of patients with complex stricture disease, reimplantation was accomplished with minimal morbidity, satisfactory patency rates, and durable outcomes. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e572 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Brian Chao More articles by this author David Strauss More articles by this author Matthew Lee More articles by this author Teona Iarajuli More articles by this author Jennifer Nguyen More articles by this author Ashley Alford More articles by this author Michael Stifelman More articles by this author Daniel Eun More articles by this author Lee Zhao More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...