Reconstruction of the lower urinary tract by laparoscopic and robotic surgery

Laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation (LEVUR): a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation is a feasible method for treating ureteral pathology with good preliminary results in the literature. In this study, we review medium term results for laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation and discuss current developments of this procedure.

METHODS

Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant key terms to identify reports of paediatric laparoscopic extravesical ureteral reimplantation (LEVUR). Literature reviews, case reports, series of <3 children and adult studies (age >20 years) were excluded.

RESULTS

Five studies were assessed, overall, 69 LEVUR were performed in children. Despite different surgical technique, in all case the technique was respected. Patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, radiological imaging, complications, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Median success rate was 96%. Complications were reported in five cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is limited by the data given in the individual series: varied criteria used for patient selection and outcome as well as inconsistent pre- and post-operative imaging data precluded a meta-analysis. But it demonstrates that the laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation is an effective procedure with good medium-term results. We believe that in well selected patients this procedure will become an established treatment option.

[Radical prostatectomy. Detection and management of intra- and postoperative complications]

Radical prostatectomy is the most common treatment for organ-confined prostate cancer. Performed without complications and limitations, surgery will allow complete removal of the tumor and, therefore, cure the patient. Operative techniques have been improved during the last few decades to reduce invasiveness of the procedure. Furthermore, optimized perioperative management has shortened hospital stay. To ensure rapid recovery of each patient, early detection of complications is highly relevant. Herein, different scenarios for peri- and postoperative complications are described, and recommendations for best practice solutions are reviewed.

Ureteric injury: a challenging condition to diagnose and manage

Although ureteric injury is relatively uncommon, it is a serious event that can result in intra-abdominal sepsis, renal failure, and loss of the ipsilateral renal unit. Most injuries are iatrogenic and remain undiagnosed until the patient presents with symptoms postoperatively. In addition to compromising patient safety, missed ureteric injuries frequently result in litigation. Over the past 20 years, there has been a rapid uptake of laparoscopic and robotic techniques within urology and other surgical specialties. This trend, coupled with increased use of ureteroscopy, has increased the risk of injury to the ureter. The key to diagnosing and managing a ureteric injury is to have a low threshold for suspecting its presence. Diagnosis can be achieved using retrograde pyelography, ureteroscopy, CT, or intravenous urography. Initial management should involve ureteric stent placement or percutaneous nephrostomy drainage. In selected patients, surgical reconstruction might be the optimal approach. Decisions regarding surgical technique (open, laparoscopic, or robotic) are guided by the clinical situation and surgical expertise available.

Role of laparoscopy in reconstructive surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite increasing laparoscopic expertise in reconstructive surgery, open procedures still represent the gold standard. Robot-assisted techniques increasingly replace laparoscopy. However, laparoscopy is also developing: by improvement of ergonomics, new instruments, and techniques further reducing access trauma. We evaluated the actual role of laparoscopy focusing on main indications of urologic reconstructive surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

We analysed the current literature (PubMed/Medline) concerning indications, perioperative results, complications, and long-term outcome of laparoscopy for pyeloplasty, ureteral reimplantation, stone surgery, management of vesico-vaginal fistula, sacrocolpopexy (including evidence level). For all indications, laparoscopy provides the advantages of less postoperative pain, blood loss, shorter convalescence, and minimal disfigurement. However, it requires expertise with endoscopic suturing. Most experience (N > 1000) exists with laparoscopic pyeloplasty and sacrocolpopexy which can be considered as valuable options (IIB). Concerning ureteral reimplantation and repair of vesico-vaginal fistula, only a limited number of cases were reported (N < 150) (III). Laparoscopic stone surgery may gain importance particularly in developing countries. Robot-assistance will definitively increase the application of laparoscopic techniques providing optimal ergonomics, whereas the role of single-port surgery will be limited.

SUMMARY

Laparoscopy will increasingly be used for reconstructive urologic surgery. This trend will be supported by the widespread use of the DaVinci device.

Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation: prospective evaluation of medium-term results and current developments

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation is a feasible method for treating ureteral pathology with good preliminary results in the literature. In this study, we review our medium-term results for laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation and discuss current developments of this procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four laparoscopic ureteral reimplantations were performed between August 2003 and December 2008 for ureteral strictures or ureteral injuries. The mean age was 53.5 years (8 men, 16 women). Patient demographics, preoperative symptoms, radiological imaging, complications, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. Ten patients underwent vesicopsoas-hitch, nine patients had a vesicopsoas-hitch combined with Boari-flap, and five had Lich-Gregoir extravesical ureteral reimplantations. Success was defined as relief of obstruction on postoperative imaging studies, as well as symptomatic relief.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantations were successfully performed in all patients. The mean operative time was 215 min (131-351). Mean estimated blood loss was 283 ml (50-550). One patient had an intraoperative bowel injury which was managed laparoscopically during the same procedure. There were two postoperative complications; two prolonged ileus and one deep venous thrombosis (DVT). Mean hospital stay was 8.7 days. Average time to return to normal activity was 2.6 weeks. Postoperative radiological imaging studies showed good drainage, without hydronephrosis, in 23 patients (success rate 95.8 %) at a median follow up interval of 35 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation is an effective procedure with good medium-term results. We believe that this procedure will become an established treatment option.

Prevention and management of ureteral injuries occurring during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Heilbronn experience and a review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

There is a small risk of ureteral injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). It is important to recognise and repair such ureteral injuries immediately. Laparoscopic reconstructive surgery has proven to be feasible for the treatment of ureteral injury. We report our experience of ureteral injuries during LRP including the incidence, mechanism of injury, management, prevention and outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During a 9-year period, 2,164 LRP's were performed at our clinic. Three cases were complicated by lower ureteral injuries including two complete and one partial transection. The complete transections occurred during posterior dissection of the bladder neck and seminal vesicles, and the partial transection during an extended lymph node dissection. All were recognised and managed intraoperatively. We performed Lich-Gregoir (LG) extravesical ureteral reimplantation for complete transections, and primary repair for the partial ureteral transection.

RESULTS

Overall, the incidence of ureteral injuries was 0.13%. Laparoscopic reconstructive surgery was performed successfully in all cases without complication. This added 71, 46 and 59 min, respectively, to LRP operative time. The postoperative course was uneventful in all patients. Hospital stay was 8 days. After 30, 17 and 14 months of follow-up, intravenous urography (IVU) demonstrated good drainage.

CONCLUSION

Recognition and repair of ureteral injuries during LRP requires a high index of suspicion, and expertise in laparoscopic technique. Laparoscopic reimplantation or primary repair of these injuries during LRP is, in experienced hands, a safe, feasible and minimally invasive procedure with the benefits of laparoscopic surgery maintained for the patient.

The current status of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a rapidly evolving technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. In the United States, over 65% of radical prostatectomies are robot-assisted, although the acceptance of this technology in Europe and the rest of the world has been somewhat slower. This article reviews the current literature on RARP with regard to oncological, continence and potency outcomes-the so-called 'trifecta'. Preliminary data appear to show an advantage of RARP over open prostatectomy, with reduced blood loss, decreased pain, early mobilization, shorter hospital stay and lower margin rates. Most studies show good postoperative continence and potency with RARP; however, this needs to be viewed in the context of the paucity of randomized data available in the literature. There is no definitive evidence to show an advantage over standard laparoscopy, but the fact that this technique has reached parity with laparoscopy within 5 years is encouraging. Finally, evolving techniques of single-port robotic prostatectomy, laser-guided robotics, catheter-free prostatectomy and image-guided robotics are discussed.