Robotic ureteral reconstruction for recurrent strictures after prior failed management

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To describe our multi‐institutional experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients who failed prior endoscopic and/or surgical management. Materials and Methods We retrospectively reviewed our Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RUR between 05/2012 and 01/2020 for a recurrent ureteral stricture after having undergone prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical repair. Post‐operatively, patients were assessed for surgical success, defined as the absence of flank pain and obstruction on imaging. Results Overall, 105 patients met inclusion criteria. Median stricture length was 2 (IQR 1–3) centimetres. Strictures were located at the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) (41.0%), proximal (14.3%), middle (9.5%) or distal (35.2%) ureter. There were nine (8.6%) radiation‐induced strictures. Prior failed management included endoscopic intervention (49.5%), surgical repair (25.7%) or both (24.8%). For repair of UPJ and proximal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (3.4%), ureterocalicostomy (5.2%), pyeloplasty (53.5%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (37.9%) was utilized; for repair of middle strictures, ureteroureterostomy (20.0%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (80.0%) was utilized; for repair of distal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (8.1%), side‐to‐side reimplant (18.9%), end‐to‐end reimplant (70.3%) or appendiceal bypass (2.7%) was utilized. Major (Clavien >2) post‐operative complications occurred in two (1.9%) patients. At a median follow‐up of 15.1 (IQR 5.0–30.4) months, 94 (89.5%) cases were surgically successful. Conclusions RUR may be performed with good intermediate‐term outcomes for patients with recurrent strictures after prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical management.

Keywords

• buccal mucosa graft
• recurrent ureteral stricture
• robotic surgical procedures
• ureteral obstruction
• ureteroplasty