Uretero-neocystostomy: a retrospective comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic techniques

Abstract

BackgroundUretero-neocystostomy (UNC) is the gold-standard for distal-ureter repair. Whether the surgery should be conducted minimally invasive (laparoscopic (LAP), robotic RAL)) or open remains unanswered by the literature.MethodsRetrospective analysis of surgical outcome of patients treated with UNC for distal ureteral stenosis (January 2012 - October 2021). Patient demographics, estimated blood loss (EBL), surgical technique, operative time, complications and length of hospital stay (LOS) were recorded. During the follow-up period, patient underwent renal ultrasound and kidney function tests. Success was defined as relieve of symptoms or no findings of obstruction needing urine drainage.Results60 patients were included (9 RAL, 25 LAP, 26 open). The different cohorts were similar of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body-mass index and history of prior treatment of the ureter. No intraoperative complications were detected in all groups. There was no conversion to open surgery in the RAL group, whereas one was found in the LAP arm. Six patients had a recurrent stricture, but with no significant difference between the cohorts. EBL was not different between the groups. LOS was significantly lower in the RAL + LAP group compared to open (7 vs. 13 days, p = 0.005) despite significantly longer operating times (186 vs. 125.5 min, p = 0.005).ConclusionMinimal invasive UNC, especially RAL, is a feasible and safe surgical method and provides similar results in terms of success rates in comparison to open approach. A shorter LOS could be detected. Further prospective studies need to be done.