Robot-assisted laparoscopic reconstruction of retrocaval ureter: description and video of technique

Laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal repair of retrocaval ureter: A comparison of the surgical outcomes from two centres with a comprehensive literature review

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive surgical approaches for the repair of retrocaval ureter (RCU) has been increased in time. However, the results of the robotic approach have not yet been compared with those of open or laparoscopic approaches. We aimed to compare the results of laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal repair of RCU from two centres.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Initially, we performed a systemic literature search using MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar about the RCU. Finally, a comparison of the efficacy and outcomes of the laparoscopic and robotic transperitoneal approaches for RCU repair was performed with the results of two centers.

RESULTS

The mean age was 27.5 ± 3.6 years. The mean operative time was 147 ± 63.6 min. The median estimated blood loss was 100 (20-423.9) ml. The median drain removing time and hospital stay were 2 (2-3) and 3 (2-4) days, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 17.85 ± 14.6 months. All of the parameters were similar between the laparoscopic and robotic repair groups except for the mean operative time. It was significantly shorter in robotic repair group than those of laparoscopic repair group (P = 0.02). Furthermore, a ureteral stricture of the anastomotic segment was detected in a patient treated with laparoscopy during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic transperitoneal approach may shorten the operative time enabling a greater comfort in repair of RCU.

Robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction - current status and future directions

Robotic surgery in the treatment in certain urological diseases has become a mainstay. With the increasing use of the robotic platform, some surgeries which were historically performed open have transitioned to a minimally invasive technique. Recently, the robotic approach has become more utilized for ureteral reconstruction. In this article, the authors review the surgical techniques for a number of major ureteral reconstuctive surgeries and briefly discuss the outcomes reported in the literature.

Transperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyelopyelostomy for Retrocaval Ureter without Excision of the Retrocaval Segment: Experience on Three Cases

Introduction. Retrocaval ureter is a rare congenital anomaly. Open surgery was the classic treatment for this condition. Laparoscopy is currently an admitted procedure to treat many urological diseases. The objective of our study is to present our experience and discuss the safety and the feasibility of transperitoneal laparoscopic pyelopyelostomy for treatment of retrocaval ureter (RCU). Materials and Methods. Three symptomatic patients underwent laparoscopic repair for RCU in our department. The diagnosis was suspected on the computed tomography scan (CT) and confirmed on ascending pyelography. After placement of a JJ stent, and, using the transperitoneal approach, the retro peritoneum was exposed; the ureter was identified in both sides of the vena cava. The retrocaval segment was entirely mobilized and pulled from behind of the vena cava after section of renal pelvis. A pyelopyelostomy was done in a normal anatomic position. Results. All operations were achieved laparoscopically without conversion to open surgery. The mean operative time was 140 minutes (110–190). No intraoperative complication occurred. Blood loss was less than 50 mL in all patients. The mean hospital stay was 5 days (4–6 days). All patients were symptom-free after surgery and had reduction of hydronephrosis in control imagery. Conclusion. Laparoscopy seems safe, feasible, and reproducible in managing retrocaval ureter.

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic reconstruction for retrocaval ureter: experience and literature review

PURPOSE

We describe surgical techniques and experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloureterostomy in five cases of retrocaval ureter (RU). We also report the laparoscopic approach reconstruction for RU from peer-reviewed publications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Five patients with RU underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloureterostomy. Nuclear renography, intravenous urography (IVU), and ultrasonography follow-up was performed postoperatively. Science Citation Index searches were conducted to identify laparoscopic reconstruction for RU outcomes. Studies published after 1994 were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Operations were completed successfully and without complications in five patients. The mean operative time was 90.2 ± 34.4 minutes. The mean time needed to insert the Double-J stent and reanastomosis was 51.2 ± 11.4 minutes. Blood loss was minimal. Over a follow-up of 12 to 37 months, hydronephrosis was found to decrease substantially. There were 24 peer-reviewed studies covering a total of 62 patients suitable for inclusion in our final analysis. The most common method for reconstruction of the ureter was ureteroureterostomy, followed by pyeloureterostomy and pyelopyelotomy.

CONCLUSION

Retroperitoneal laparoscopy for RU is a safe and effective procedure that should be considered as a first-line treatment for patients with this anatomic anomaly.