Laparoscopic substitution of the proximal ureter using buccal mucosa


Cite item

Full Text

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

Abstract

Introduction. In patients with long ureteral strictures, bowel substitution of the ureter or kidney autotransplantation can be performed, which are technically demanding. For recurrent uretero-pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) and proximal ureteral strictures, substitution of the ureter using buccal graft may be an alternative. Aim: to study the results of laparoscopic ureteral substitution in patients with long proximal ureteral strictures using buccal graft. Material and methods. Laparoscopic ureteral substitution of the ureter using buccal graft was performed in 10 patients with long proximal ureteral strictures, 7 of them were men. The average age was 43.5 years. In 6 patients there was a recurrence after previous pyeloplasty, while 3 patients had ureteroscopy due to upper ureteral stone and one patient had ureteral trauma during laparoscopic excision of the kidney cyst. Three patients were admitted to the hospital with nephrostomy tube, seven with a ureteral stent. Using a laparoscopic approach, an affected part of the ureter was dissected along its length, then a stent was placed antegrade and the ureter was substituted with buccal graft using the onlay technique. Results. All patients underwent laparoscopic intervention. There were no intraoperative complications. The duration of the procedure ranged from 170 to 340 minutes. There were no cases of anastomotic leakage. Fever was observed in one patient without nephrostomy drainage (Clavien grade I). On intravenous pyelography and computed tomography, the neoureter was wide and patent. In patients with PUJO, a severity of dilation of the collecting system was decreased over time. Clinically, all procedures were successful, as patients were free of nephrostomy tube and symptoms of upper urinary tract obstruction. Conclusion. Ureteral substitution using buccal graft may be the method of choice in patients with long proximal ureteral strictures. It is relatively easy, since it does not require extensive dissection of the ureter and provides for the possibility of using buccal graft of the desired length.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

B. G Guliev

NorthWestern State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; Center of Urology with robot-assisted surgery of City Mariinsky hospital

Email: gulievbg@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor at the Department of Urology

B. K Komyakov

NorthWestern State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov

Email: komyakovbk@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor, Head of the Department of Urology

J. P Avazkhanov

NorthWestern State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; Center of Urology with robot-assisted surgery of City Mariinsky hospital

Email: professor-can@mail.ru
correspondence Ph.D. student Department of Urology; urologist

References

  1. Komyakov B.K., Guliev B.G. Surgical treatment of long ureteral strictures. SPb.: Nevskij dialekt, 2005. 257 p. Russian (Комяков Б.К., Гулиев Б.Г. Хирургия протяженных сужений мочеточников. СПб.: Невский диалект, 2005. 257 с.).
  2. Wenske S., Olsson C.A., Benson M.C. Outcomes of distal ureteral reconstruction through reimplantation with psoas hitch, Boari flap, or ureteroneocystostomy for benign or malignant ureteral obstruction or injury. Urology. 2013;82(1):231-236. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.05.033.
  3. Komyakov B.K., Guliev B.G., Ochelenko V.A. Technical features of bowel substitution of the ureter. Part 3: Laparoscopic ileo- and appendicular substitution of the ureter. Urologiia. 2016;4: 4-9. Russian ( 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).
  4. Cowan N.G., Banerji J.S., Johnston R.B. et al. Renal autotransplantation: 27-year experience at 2 institutions. J Urol. 2015;194(5):1357-1361. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.088.
  5. Tran G., Ramaswamy K., Chi T. et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy with autotransplantation: safety, efficacy and long-term durability. J Urol. 2015;194(3):738-743. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.089
  6. Roth J.D., Monn M.F., Szymanski K.M. et al. Ureteral reconstruction with ileum: long-term follow-up of renal function. Urology. 2017;104:225-229. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.02.026.
  7. Srivastava D., Sureka S.K., Yadav P. Bansal A., Gupta S. et al. Ureterocalicostomy for reconstruction of complicated ureteropelvic junction obstruction in adults: long-term outcome and factors predicting failure in a contemporary cohort. J. Urol. 2017;198(6):1374-1378. doi: 10.1016/j.uro.2017.06.079.
  8. Patterson J.M., Chapple C.R. Surgical techniques in substitution urethroplasty using buccal mucosa for the treatment of anterior urethral strictures. Eur Urol. 2008;53 (6):1162-1171. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.11.
  9. Hudak S.J., Lubarn J.D., Kulkarni S., Morey A.F. Single-stage reconstruction of complex anterior urethral strictures using overlapping dorsal and ventral buccal mucosal grafts. BJU Int. 2012;110(4):592-596. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10787.x.
  10. Warner J.N., Malkawi I., Dhradkeh M., Joshi P.M., Kulkarni S.B. et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of the management and outcomes of long-segment urethral strictures. Urology. 2015;85 (6):1483-1487. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.041.
  11. Naude J.H. The natural history of ureteric bilharzia. Br J. Urol. 1984;56(6):599-601. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1984.tb06125.x
  12. Somerville J.J., Naude J.H. Segmental ureteric replacement: an animal study using a free non-pedicled graft. Urol Res. 1984;12(2):115-119. doi: 10.1007/bf00257176.
  13. Kroepfl D., Loewen H., Klevecka V., et al. Treatment of long ureteric strictures with buccal mucosal grafts. BJU Int. 2010;105(10):1452-1455. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08994.x.
  14. Badawy A.A., Abolyosr A., Saleem M.D. et al. Buccal mucosa graft for ureteral stricture substitution: initial experience. Urology. 2010;76(4):971- 975. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.095.
  15. Трапезникова М.Ф., Базаев В.В., Шибаев А.Н., и соавт. Заместительная пластика протяженных стриктур мочеточника аутотрансплантатом буккальной слизистой. Урология. 2014;2: 16-19
  16. Zhao L.C., Yamaguchi Y., Bryk D.J. et al. Robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction using buccal mucosa. Urology. 2015;86 (3):634-638. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.006.
  17. Arora S., Campbell L., Tourojman M., et al. Robotic buccal mucosal graft ureteroplasty for complex ureteral stricture. Urology. 2017;110:257-258. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.06.037.
  18. Lee Z., Waldorf B.T., Cho E.Y., et al. Robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft for the management of complex ureteral strictures. J. Urol. 2017;198(6):1430-1435. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.06.097.
  19. Ganpule A.P., Singh A.G., Islam M.R. et al. Robotic buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (inlay and onlay) for upper ureteric stricture: Point of technique. J. Minim Access Surg. 2018;14(4):357-361. doi: 10.4103/jmas. JMAS 188 17.
  20. Li B., Xu Y., Hai B. et al. Laparoscopic onlay lingual mucosal graft ureteroplasty for proximal ureteral stricture: initial experience and 9-month follow-up. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2016; 48(8):1275-1279. Doi: 10.1007/ s11255-016-1289-9.
  21. Naude J.H. Buccal mucosal grafts in the treatment of ureteric lesions. BJU Int. 1999;83(7):751 - 754. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00019.x.
  22. Fahmy O., Schubert T., Khairul-Asri M.G. et al. Total proximal ureter substitution using buccal mucosa. Int J. Urol. 2017; 24(4):320-323. doi: 10.1111/iju.13307.
  23. Zhao L.C., Weinberg A., Lee Z. et al. Robotic ureteral reconstruction using buccal mucosa graft: a multi-institutional experience. Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 419-426.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2021 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies