INTESTINAL AND APPENDICULAR URETERAL SUBSTITUTION


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Aim. To present the technical features and results of intestinal and appendicular ureteral replacement. Material and methods. From 1998 to 2020, a total of 196 patients aged 18 to 77 years (mean age 49.5 ± 1.2 years) were undergone to intestinal and appendicular ureteral reconstruction in our clinic. There were 123 women (62.8%). The most frequent indications for surgery were complications of open and endoscopic ureteral procedures, radiation-induced ureteral stricture, and iatrogenic injuries of the ureters during gynecological and surgical interventions (81.6%). In 165 (84.2%) patients, for ureteral replacement the ileal segment was used, while in 4 (2.0%) and 27 (13.8%) cases the colon segment and the appendix were chosen, respectively. Unilateral ileal ureteral replacement was performed in 131 (79.4%) cases, while in 34 (26.6%) patients a bilateral procedure was done. Partial and complete ureteral replacement was performed in 107 (81.7%) and 24 (18.3%) cases, respectively. Laparoscopic intestinal and appendicular ureteral replacement was performed in 44 (22.4%) patients, while two patients were undergone to robot-assisted procedure (1.0%). Results. Early postoperative complications were noted in 17 (8.7%) cases. The most severe included acute bowel obstruction, leakage of entero-ureteral anastomoses, necrosis of the ileal graft and bleeding in 10 (5.1%) patients. In all cases, repeat intervention was performed. There were no lethal complications. Late postoperative complications developed in 24 (14.3%) patients. Conclusion. Today our clinic has the world’s largest experience in intestinal and appendicular ureteral reconstruction, including original procedures, confirmed by 5 patents for inventions. The minimum number of postoperative complications, the absence of deaths and good long-term results provide the basis for the introduction of ileal and appendicular ureteral replacement into clinical practice.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

B. K Komyakov

FGBOU VO North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; Saint Petersburg GBUZ City clinical multidisciplinary hospital No 2

Email: komyakovbk@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor, Head of the Department of Urology of FGBOU VO North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov, Chief of Saint Petersburg Scientific and Practical Center of GBUZ City clinical multidisciplinary hospital No 2 Saint Petersburg, Russia

T. Kh Al-Attar

FGBOU VO North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; Saint Petersburg GBUZ City clinical multidisciplinary hospital No 2

Email: dr-talat@mail.ru
Ph.D., assistant at the Department of Urology Saint Petersburg, Russia

B. G Guliev

FGBOU VO North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov

Email: gulievbg@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor at the Department of Urology of FGBOU VO North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov, Head of Center of Urology with robot-assisted surgery of City Mariinsky hospital Saint Petersburg, Russia

References

  1. Komyakov B.K. Intestinal and appendicular ureteroplasty. M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2015. 416 p.
  2. Лоран О.Б., Синякова Л.А., Серегин А.В. и др. Использование изолированных сегментов кишечника в оперативном лечении лучевых повреждений мочевыводящих путей. Урология. 2012;2:20-24.
  3. Зубань О.Н., Скорняков С.Н., Арканов Л.В. и др. Энтеропластика протяженных стриктур мочеточника туберкулезного и другого генеза. Урология. 2014;4:10-15.
  4. Komyakov B., Ochelenko V., Mhanna H. Ureteral substitution with intestinal segments. The Journal Of Urology. 2020;203(4S, Suppl):e597-598.
  5. Комяков Б.К., Фадеев В.А., Гулиев Б.Г., Очеленко В.А., Ал-Аттар Т.Х., Сергеев А.В., Тарасов В.А. Желудочнокишечная реконструкция мочевых путей: опыт 502 операций. Урологические ведомости. 2019;9(1S):47-48.
  6. Okumura Y., Akamatsu S., Okada Y., et al. Clinical Utility of Upper Urinary Tract Reconstruction by Ileal-Ureter Substitution. Hinyokika Kiyo. 2018;64(3):87-94.
  7. Zhong W., Hong P., Ding G., et al. Technical considerations and outcomes for ileal ureter replacement: a retrospective study in China. BMC Surg. 2019;19(1):9.
  8. Komyakov B., Ochelenko V., Guliev B. Shevnin M. Ureteral substitution with appendix. International Journal of Urology. 2020;27(8):663-669.
  9. Комяков Б.К., Гулиев Б.Г., Очеленко В.А. Технические особенности кишечной пластики мочеточников. Часть 3: лапароскопическая илео- и аппендикулярная уретеропластика. Урология. 2016;4:4-9.
  10. Кочкин А.Д., Галлямов Э.А., Попов С.В., Биктимиров Р.Г., Санжаров А.Е., Сергеев В.П., Севрюков Ф.А., Орлов И.Н., Новиков А.Б. Лапароскопическая заместительная кишечная пластика мочеточников. Результаты первых 40 операций. Урология. 2018;5:5-12.
  11. Карпенко B.С. Кишечная пластика мочеточников в лечении приобретенных обструктивных уретерогидронефрозов. Урология. 2001;2:3-6.
  12. Monn M.F., Roth J.D, Bihrle R., Mellon J.M. Long term outcomes in the use of ileal ureter for radiation-induced ureteral strictures. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2018;50(8):1375-1380.
  13. Esmat M., Abdelaal A., Mostafa D. Application of Yang-Monti principle in ileal ureter substitution: is it a beneficial modification? Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38(6):779-785.
  14. Ordorica R., Wiegand L., Webster J. Ureteral replacement and only repair with reconfigured intestinal segments. J Urol. 2014;191(5):1301-1306.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies