Reconstruction after ureteral resection during HIPEC surgery: Re-implantation with uretero-neocystostomy seems safer than end-to-end anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Resection of the pelvic ureter may be necessary in cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal carcinomatosis in combination with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). As the morbidity for cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC has decreased, expert teams have begun to perform increasingly complex surgical procedures associated with HIPEC, including pelvic reconstructions. After ureteral resection, two types of reconstruction are possible: uretero-ureteral end-to-end anastomosis and uretero-vesical re-implantation or uretero-neocystostomy (the so-called psoas hitch technique). By compiling the experience of three surgical teams that perform HIPEC surgeries, we have tried to compare the effectiveness of these two techniques.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective comparative case-matched multicenter study was conducted for patients undergoing operation between 2005 and 2014. Patients included had undergone resection of the pelvic ureter during cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC for peritoneal carcinomatomosis; ureteral reconstruction was by either end-to-end anastomosis (EEA group) or re-implantation uretero-neocystostomy (RUC group). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of urinary fistula in postoperative follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 14 patients in the EEA group and 14 in the RUC group. The groups were comparable for age, extent of carcinomatosis (PCI index) and operative duration. Four urinary fistulas occurred in the EEA group (28.5%) versus zero fistulas in the RUC group (0%) (P=0.0308).

CONCLUSION

Re-implantation with uretero-neocystostomy during cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC is the preferred technique for reconstruction after ureteral resection in case of renal conservation.

From Carrel to Robotics: Renal Transplantation and the Evolution of its Surgical Technique

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Renal transplantation has become the standard of care for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to significant advancements across various medical and surgical fields. This review highlights the evolution of renal transplantation techniques, while also exploring the latest tools and practices that promise to further improve their outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the first successful renal transplant, numerous innovations have been implemented in the various stages of renal graft implantation. These include improved techniques in vascular and urinary anastomoses, graft positioning, and the recent emergence of modern technologies such as robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) which have shown promise in enhancing surgical performance. The field of renal transplantation is continuously evolving. As new and more efficient technologies continue to emerge, these too will become the standard of care and training. It is essential for transplant surgeons to understand the key historical developments that have led to our current level of expertise, so we can make effective use of these tools in further advancing the field.

The role of ureteral stents for all ureteroneocystostomies in kidney transplants

BACKGROUND

Despite significant advancements in renal transplantation, certain basic surgical practices such as the routine use of ureteral stents (US) remain controversial. A recent met-analysis of ureteral stenting concluded that the routine use of US resulted in improved outcomes. In contrast, the indiscriminate use of US can lead to adverse complications.

OBJECTIVE

To better define this question, we reviewed our single center experience in which US were placed selectively.

METHODS

301 patients were eligible to be enrolled. 55 living donor and 246 deceased-donor charts were analyzed for donor and recipient clinical characteristics, immunosuppressive therapy and outcomes.

RESULTS

28 US were placed for either small bladder capacity (n=7), unhealthy appearing bladder tissue (n=8) or for an uncertain vascular supply to the ureter (n=13). Patients with US did not develop urinary leaks, 8 (28%) developed complications including obstruction, encrustation, and urinary tract infections. 12 (4.3%) non-stented patients developed a clinically significant urinary leak. Risk factors for urinary leaks included dual and en-bloc pediatric donor kidney transplants, extended criteria donors and the use of single U stitch technique for ureteral anastomoses.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that the majority of patients can be successfully transplanted without the routine use of US. Selective use of US should be reserved for high-risk situations.