Optimizing decision-making process of benign uretero-enteric anastomotic stricture treatment after radical cystectomy
- PMID: 36725730
- DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04298-y
Optimizing decision-making process of benign uretero-enteric anastomotic stricture treatment after radical cystectomy
Abstract
Purpose: To identify preoperative predictors of endo-urological treatment (EUT) failure while promoting a new diagnostic and therapeutic pathway for benign uretero-enteric anastomosis stricture (UES) management after radical cystectomy (RC).
Materials and methods: We relied on a prospectively maintained database including 96 individuals (122 renal units) who developed a benign UES at our institution between 1990 and 2018. UES was classified into two different types according to morphology: FP1 (i.e., sharp or duckbill) and FP2 (i.e., flat or concave). EUT feasibility, success rate, as well as intra and postoperative complications were recorded. Uni- and multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA) assessed for predictors of EUT failure.
Results: Overall, 78 (63.9%) and 32 (26.3%) cases were defined as FP1 and FP2, respectively. EUT was not feasible in 33 (27.1%) cases. After a median follow-up of 50 (IQR 5-240) months, successful treatment was reached only in 15/122 (12.3%) cases. EUT success rates raised when considering short (< 1 cm) (16.8%), FP1 morphology (16.7%) strictures, or the combination of these characteristics (22.4%). Overall, 5 (5.2%) cases had CD ≥ III complications. FP2 (OR: 1.91, 95%CI 1.21-5.31, p = 0.03) and stricture length ≥ 1 cm (OR: 9.08, 95%CI 2.09-65.71, p = 0.009) were associated with treatment failure at MVA.
Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment for benign UES after RC is feasible but harbors a low success rate. Stricture length and radiological morphology of the stricture are related to endoscopic treatment failure. Surgeons should be aware of the stricture features during the preoperative decision-making process to choose the optimal candidate for endoscopic treatment.
Keywords: Radical cystectomy; Ureteral stricture; Uretero-enteric anastomosis; Urinary diversion.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Anderson CB, Morgan TM, Kappa S, Moore D, Clark PE, Davis R et al (2013) Ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures after radical cystectomy-does operative approach matter? J Urol 189:541–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2012.09.034 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Tal R, Sivan B, Kedar D, Baniel J (2007) Management of benign ureteral strictures following radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer. J Urol 178:538–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2007.03.142 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Shah SH, Movassaghi K, Skinner D, Dalag L, Miranda G, Cai J et al (2015) Ureteroenteric strictures after open radical cystectomy and urinary diversion: the University of Southern California experience. Urology 86:87–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.UROLOGY.2015.03.014 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Large MC, Cohn JA, Kiriluk KJ, Dangle P, Richards KA, Smith ND et al (2013) The impact of running versus interrupted anastomosis on ureterointestinal stricture rate after radical cystectomy. J Urol 190:923–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2013.02.091 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Minervini R, Pagni R, Mariani C, Morelli A, Morelli G, Minervini A (2010) Effects on renal function of obstructive and nonobstructive dilatation of the upper urinary tract in ileal neobladders with refluxing ureteroenteric anastomoses. Eur J Surg Oncol 36:287–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJSO.2009.09.003 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical