Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2002 Jan-Mar;6(1):49-52.

The implications of lighted ureteral stenting in laparoscopic colectomy

Fadi Chahin  1 , Amit J Dwivedi, Anil Paramesh, Wai Chau, Sunita Agrawal, Chadi Chahin, Anil Kumar, A Tootla, Farooq Tootla, Yvan J Silva
Affiliations

The implications of lighted ureteral stenting in laparoscopic colectomy

Fadi Chahin et al. JSLS. 2002 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Objective: The placement of indwelling ureteral catheters during colorectal surgery has been recommended for prevention of ureteral injuries. With the advent of laparoscopic colectomy (LCo), the role of preoperative placement of lighted ureteral stents (LUS) has also become commonplace. We sought to evaluate the value of lighted ureteral stent placement in laparoscopic colectomy.

Methods: Sixty-six patients underwent LCo with LUS inserted preoperatively. Stents were removed in the immediate postoperative period. Two surgeons performed all the colectomies; 32 patients were males and 34 were females. Fifty patients underwent sigmoid colectomy, 4 had abdominoperineal resection, 4 had right colectomy, and 1 each had transverse or subtotal colectomy. Eighteen patients had a diagnosis of cancer, 34 had diverticular disease, and 14 had neoplastic polyps. Forty patients had bilateral and 26 had unilateral stent placement. A review of the incidence of ureteral injuries, hematuria, and anuria as the cause of acute renal failure was accomplished, comparing the unilateral and bilateral stented groups.

Results: One (1.5%) patient suffered a left ureteral laceration during sigmoid colectomy. This was managed successfully with stent reinsertion. Sixty-five (98.4%) patients had gross hematuria lasting 2.93 days (1 to 6 days). The cost of bilateral stent placement was $1,504.32. A statistically significant difference occurred in the duration of hematuria (days) between patients who had unilateral (2.5 +/- 0.82) and bilateral stent placement (3.37 +/- 1.05), (P < 0.001). Four patients suffered from anuria, 2 required renal support needing hemodialysis for 3 to 6 days, 3 (75%) had bilateral stents, and 1 (25%) had a unilateral stent.

Conclusions: We recommend the placement of lighted ureteral stents as a valuable adjunct to laparoscopic colectomy to safeguard ureteral integrity. Transient hematuria is common but requires no intervention. Reflux anuria occurs infrequently and is reversible.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Comparison of complications between unilateral and bilateral stenting. The total percentage of patients with unilateral and bilateral stenting with complications is depicted in the figure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Leff EI, Groff W, Rubin RJ, Eisenstat TE, Salvati EP. Use of ureteral catheters in colonic and rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 1982;25:457–460 - PubMed
    1. Kyzer S, Gordon PH. The prophylactic use of ureteral catheters during colorectal operations. Am Surg. 1994;60:212–219 - PubMed
    1. Senagore AJ, Luchtefeld M. An initial experience with lighted ureteral catheters during laparoscopic colectomy. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1994;4:399–403 - PubMed
    1. Fry DE, Milholen L, Harbrecht PJ. Iatrogenic ureteral injury. Arch Surg. 1983;118:454–457 - PubMed
    1. Sheikh FA, Khubchandani IT. Prophylactic ureteric catheters in colon surgery- How safe are they? Report of three cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1990;33:508–510 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources