Ureteroureterostomy irrespective of ureteral size or upper pole function: A single center experience

Abstract

ObjectiveAlthough ureteroureterostomy (UU) is an established procedure for the treatment of duplex anomalies, there may be a reluctance to apply this approach to patients with poor upper pole function and/or marked degrees of ureteral dilation. MethodsAn institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing UU between 2006 and present was performed. All patients underwent an end-to-side anastomosis with a double-J stent left in the lower pole ureter. Laparoscopic repairs were done ‘high’ and open repairs were done ‘low’. If the upper pole ureter remained massively dilated after transection, the ureter was partially closed to reduce the length of the anastomosis. Data collected included demographics, diagnosis, surgical interventions, imaging studies and outcomes. ResultsA total of 41 patients (43 renal units) were identified. There were 35 females and six males with an average age at surgery of 2.3 years (range 55 days to 15.9 years) and an average follow up of 2.8 years. Diagnosis included ureterocele (17), ectopic duplex ureter (25) and ureteral triplication (1). Thirty-six patients underwent UU only and five underwent UU with simultaneous lower pole reimplantation. Twelve of the 41 patients (29%) underwent laparoscopic repair. Twelve of the 43 renal units (28%) required ureteral tapering, of which three were performed laparoscopically. Preoperative median upper pole function was 17% (0–35%).Six patients had no measurable function and ten had < 15%. No patient developed lower pole hydronephrosis in the follow-up period. There were two complications: one patient was found to have a post-operative ureterovesical junction (UVJ) stricture and the second had an anastomotic stricture. ConclusionUreteroureterostomy is a safe and effective technique for the reconstruction of duplex anomalies, even with a massively dilated and poorly functioning upper pole moiety. With no identifiable negative effect on the lower pole system, the concept of automatically removing ‘dysplastic’ upper pole segments can be challenged.