Robotic-assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation: a multicentre comparison.

PURPOSE: Open ureteral reimplantation is considered the standard surgical approach to treat distal ureteral strictures or injuries. These procedures are increasingly performed in a minimally invasive and robotic-assisted manner. Notably, no series comparing perioperative outcomes and safety of the open vs. robotic approach are available so far. METHODS: In this retrospective multi-center study, we compared data from 51 robotic ureteral reimplantations (RUR) with 79 open ureteral reimplantations (OUR). Both cohorts were comparatively assessed using different baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes. Moreover, a multivariate logistic regression for independent predictors was performed. RESULTS: Surgery time, length of hospital stay and dwell time of bladder catheter were shorter in the robotic cohort, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion rate and postoperative complications were lower than in the open cohort. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, robotic approach was an independent predictor for a shorter operation time (coefficient - 0.254, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.342 to - 0.166; p < 0.001), a lower estimated blood loss (coefficient - 0.390, 95% CI - 0.549 to - 0.231, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (coefficient - 0.455, 95% CI - 0.552 to - 0.358, p < 0.001). Moreover, robotic surgery was an independent predictor for a shorter dwell time of bladder catheter (coefficient - 0.210, 95% CI - 0.278 to - 0.142, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: RUR represents a safe alternative to OUR, with a shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Prospective research are needed to further define the extent of the advantages of the robotic approach over open surgery.

Ureteral stricture rate after endoscopic treatments for urolithiasis and related risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to accurately determine ureteral stricture (US) rates following urolithiasis treatments and their related risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines using databases from inception to November 2023. Studies were deemed eligible for analysis if they included ≥ 18 years old patients with urinary lithiasis (Patients) who were subjected to endoscopic treatment (Intervention) with ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (Comparator) to assess the incidence of US (Outcome) in prospective and retrospective studies (Study design). RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included. The pooled US rate was 1.3% post-SWL and 2.1% post-PCNL. The pooled rate of US post-URS was 1.9% but raised to 2.7% considering the last five years' studies and 4.9% if the stone was impacted. Moreover, the pooled US rate differed if follow-ups were under or over six months. Patients with proximal ureteral stone, preoperative hydronephrosis, intraoperative ureteral perforation, and impacted stones showed higher US risk post-endoscopic intervention with odds ratio of 1.6 (P = 0.05), 2.6 (P = 0.009), 7.1 (P < 0.001), and 7.47 (P = 0.003), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall US rate ranges from 0.3 to 4.9%, with an increasing trend in the last few years. It is influenced by type of treatment, stone location and impaction, preoperative hydronephrosis and intraoperative perforation. Future standardized reporting and prospective and more extended follow-up studies might contribute to a better understanding of US risks related to calculi treatment.

An international delphi survey and consensus meeting to define the risk factors for ureteral stricture after endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis.

PURPOSE: Iatrogenic ureteral strictures (US) after endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis represent a significant healthcare concern. However, high-quality evidence on the risk factors associated with US is currently lacking. We aimed to develop a consensus statement addressing the definition, risk factors, and follow-up management of iatrogenic US after endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis. METHODS: Utilizing a modified Delphi method, a steering committee developed survey statements based on a systematic literature review. Then, a two-round online survey was submitted to 25 experts, offering voting options to assess agreement levels. A consensus panel meeting was held for unresolved statements. The predetermined consensus threshold was set at 70%. RESULTS: The steering committee formulated 73 statements. In the initial survey, consensus was reached on 56 (77%) statements. Following in-depth discussions and refinement of 17 (23%) statements in a consensus meeting, the second survey achieved consensus on 63 (86%) statements. This process underscored agreement on pivotal factors influencing US in endoscopic urolithiasis treatments. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a comprehensive list of categorized risk factors for US following endoscopic urolithiasis treatments. The objectives include enhancing uniformity in research, minimizing redundancy in outcome assessments, and effectively addressing risk factors associated with US. These findings are crucial for designing future clinical trials and guiding endoscopic surgeons in mitigating the risk of US.

The relationship between the force applied and perceived by the surgeon during ureteral access sheath placement: ex-vivo experimental model.

PURPOSE: To define a peak force of insertion (PFOI) threshold for ureteral damage during ureteral access sheath (UAS) placement on an experimental ureteral orifice model. METHODS: A specially designed water tank using 2 laparoscopic 5 mm ports and 2 different size (10 Fr and 8 Fr) sealing cap adaptors (SCA) as ureteral orifices was used to perform the test. A 10-12 Fr UAS was fixed to a load cell and the force of insertion (FOI) was continuously recorded with a digital force gauge.13 experts in the field of endourology who participated performed 3 UAS insertions. The FOI was recorded initially with 10 Fr followed by 8 Fr SCA. On the final insertion, the orifice was obstructed, leaving a 5 cm length to insert the UAS. The experts were asked to "Stop at the point they anticipate ureteral damage, and they would not proceed in real life". RESULTS: Using 10 Fr SCA the PFOI was 2.12 ± 0.58 Newton (N) (range:1.48-3.48) while 8 Fr SCA showed a PFOI 5.76 ± 0.96 N (range:4.05-7.35). Six of the experts, said they would stop proceeding when they reached above 5.1 N. Three experts had PFOI < 5.1 N and the other 4 stated they would go with PFOIs of 5.88, 6.16, 6.69 and 7.35 N when using SCA of 8 Fr.The highest load they would stop proceeding had a PFOI of 6.09 ± 1.87 N (range: 2.53-10.74). CONCLUSION: The PFOI threshold for ureteral damage inserting UAS of the experts is variable. Although FOI is a subjective perception, experience suggests that ureteral injury may occur at an average of 6.05 N perceived by surgeons' tactile feedback. In-vivo measurement of UAS PFOI may confirm a threshold.

Risk stratification of acute kidney injury (AKI) following ureteral stent insertion for colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Ureteral stents have long been utilized during colorectal resections to assist in the identification of ureters intraoperatively and mitigate risk of ureteral injury. As these procedures have shifted toward robot-assisted laparoscopic methods, lighted stents have increasingly been used. The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) following bilateral ureteral stent placement has been reported to be as high as 41.9%. We sought to identify our single-institution risk and determine the extent to which age, sex, and stent type affected incidence of AKI. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed at a single community hospital of all open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgeries from October 2012 to April 2022. If requested, ureteral stents were placed bilaterally by a urologist and later removed by the surgeon. Non-lighted stents used were 5 Fr whistle-tip (BARD); lighted stents were 6 Fr with a fiberoptic core (STRYKER). Kidney failure was described as a rise of creatinine to ≥ 1.5 times the preoperative value, per KDIGO guidelines. RESULTS: 633 consecutive colorectal surgeries were evaluated, with no stents placed in 237 cases, non-lighted stents placed in 137 cases, and lighted stents placed in 259 cases. No ureteral injuries were observed. Overall incidence of AKI for non-stented surgeries was 0.8% vs 5.8% for non-lighted stents and 5.8% for lighted stents. Patient age was the most significant factor in AKI incidence: for patients under 60, there was no statistical difference in AKI incidence for stented vs non-stented procedures (2.2% vs 1.1%). For patients over 60, the risk of AKI was 10.5% for stented vs 0.7% for non-stented. Female patients had statistically significant risk differences, with AKI incidence of 7.1% stented vs 0.0% non-stented. AKI completely resolved in all cases, regardless of cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients under age 60, the use of stents was not associated with an increased risk of AKI. For women and those over 60, stents pose a higher risk of transient AKI. Overall incidence of AKI in our larger and single-institution community hospital population was significantly lower than reported in other studies. No statistical difference was observed, overall, in AKI incidence between lighted and non-lighted stents.

Preventing iatrogenic ureteral injury in colorectal surgery: a comprehensive and systematic review of the last 2 decades of literature and future perspectives.

Iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI) during colorectal surgery is a rare complication but related to a serious burden of morbidity. This comprehensive and systematic review aims to provide a critical overview of the most recent literature about IUI prevention techniques in colorectal surgery. We performed a comprehensive and systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2022 and assessed the use of techniques for ureteral injury prevention and intraoperative localization. 26 publications were included, divided into stent-based (prophylactic/lighted ureteral stent and near-infrared fluorescent ureteral catheter [PUS/LUS/NIRFUC]) and fluorescent dye (FD) groups. Costs, the percentage and number of IUIs detected, reported limitations, complication rates and other outcome points were compared. The IUI incidence rate ranged from 0 to 1.9% (mean 0.5%) and 0 to 1.2% (mean 0.3%) in the PUS/LUS/NIRFUC and FD groups, respectively. The acute kidney injury (AKI) and urinary tact infection (UTI) incidence rate ranged from 0.4 to 32.6% and 0 to 17.3%, respectively, in the PUS/LUS/NIRFUC group and 0-15% and 0-6.3%, respectively, in the FD group. Many other complications were also compared and descriptively analyzed (length-of-stay, mortality, etc.). These techniques appear to be feasible and safe in select patients with a high risk of IUI, but the delineation of reliable guidelines for preventing IUI will require more randomized controlled trials.

Effect of bladder emptying status on the ureteral access sheath insertion resistance and following ureteral injury in RIRS: a prospective randomized controlled trial in academic hospital.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of bladder emptying status on the ureteral access sheath (UAS) insertion resistance and following ureteral injury. METHODS: Eighty patients were enrolled and randomly divided into bladder emptying group and control group before UAS placement. A digital force gauge (Imada Z2-50N) was used to measure the resistance during the UAS insertion. The ureteral injury was evaluated and graded with Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) system at the end of procedure. The mean resistance, maximum resistance in different ureteral segments, and ureteral injury were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The mean resistance (3.12 ± 0.49 vs. 4.28 ± 0.52 N, P < 0.001), maximum resistance in the whole procedure (5.17 ± 0.72 vs. 6.39 ± 0.96 N, P < 0.001) and distal ureter (3.07 ± 0.75 vs. 6.18 ± 1.17 N, P < 0.001) in the bladder emptying group were significantly lower when compared to the control group. In subgroup analysis, the similar result was also noted in patients with BMI ≥ 25 when compared to patients with BMI < 25, while there was no significant difference between men and women, age ≥ 50 years versus age < 50 years. The incidence of PULS 1-2 ureteral injury in the bladder emptying group was lower than the control group (35% vs. 55%, P = 0.045). The ureteral injury in distal ureteral was less frequently noted in bladder emptying group than the control group (22.5% vs. 55%, P = 0.006); however, there was no significant difference in middle and upper ureter (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Emptying the bladder before UAS insertion can effectively reduce the UAS insertion resistance and the risk of distal ureteral injury in RIRS.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Genitourinary Trauma: A Nationwide Outcomes-Based Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Bladder and ureteral injuries are uncommon in trauma patients but are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Patients presenting with such injuries may undergo either open surgical repair or laparoscopic repair. We aimed to compare outcomes of open surgical approach and laparoscopy in trauma patients with isolated bladder and ureteral injury. We hypothesized that laparoscopy is associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: We performed a 2017 review of American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program and identified trauma patients with bladder and ureteral injury who underwent open surgical repair or laparoscopy. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed adjusting for demographics, emergency department vitals (systolic blood pressure, heart rate, Glasgow Coma Scale), mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, each body region Abbreviated Injury Scale score, and transfusion units. Outcomes were rates of in-hospital major complications and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 1,004,440 trauma patients, 384 patients (open: 192 and laparoscopy: 192) were matched and included. The mean age was 36 ± 15 y, Injury Severity Score was 27 [27-48], 77% were males, and 56% of patients had a blunt mechanism of injury, and 44% had penetrating injuries. Overall mortality was 7.3%. On univariate analysis, mortality was lower in the open group as compared to the laparoscopy group (10.4% versus 4.2%, P = 0.019) and survivor-only hospital length of stay was longer in the open group (8 [8-9] versus 7 [5-11], P = 0.008). There was no difference in overall major complications (23% versus 21%, P = 0.621). On multivariate analysis, open surgical repair was independently associated with lower odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.405, 95% confidence interval: [0.17-0.95], P-value = 0.038) CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis open surgical repair of bladder and ureteral injuries was associated with lower mortality with other outcomes being similar when compared to laparoscopy. Laparoscopic surgical repair may not have an advantage over the open surgical repair for bladder and ureteral injuries. Further prospective studies are needed to delineate the ideal surgical approach for these injuries.

Iatrogenic ureteral injury during colorectal surgery has a significant impact on patient outcomes: a French multicentric retrospective cohort study.

AIM: The long-term urological sequelae after iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI) during colorectal surgery are not clearly known. The aims of this work were to report the incidence of IUI and to analyse the long-term consequences of urological late complications and their impact on oncological results of IUI occurring during colorectal surgery through a French multicentric experience (GRECCAR group). METHOD: All the patients who presented with IUI during colorectal surgery between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively included. Patients with ureteral involvement needing en bloc resection, delayed ureteral stricture or noncolorectal surgery were not considered. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients (93 men, mean age 63 ± 14 years) were identified in 29 centres, corresponding to 0.32% of colorectal surgeries (n = 63 562). Index colorectal surgery was mainly oncological (n = 130, 64%). IUI was diagnosed postoperatively in 112 patients (55%) after a mean delay of 11 ± 9 days. Intraoperative diagnosis of IUI was significantly associated with shorter length of stay (21 ± 22 days vs. 34 ± 22 days, p < 0.0001), lower rates of postoperative hydronephrosis (2% vs. 10%, p = 0.04), anastomotic complication (7% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.002) and thromboembolic event (0% vs. 6%, p = 0.02) than postoperative diagnosis of IUI. Delayed chemotherapy because of IUI was reported in 27% of patients. At the end of the follow-up [3 ± 2.6 years (1 month-13 years)], 72 patients presented with urological sequalae (36%). Six patients (3%) required a nephrectomy. CONCLUSION: IUI during colorectal surgery has few consequences for the patients if recognized early. Long-term urological sequelae can occur in a third of patients. IUI may affect oncological outcomes in colorectal surgery by delaying adjuvant chemotherapy, especially when the ureteral injury is not diagnosed peroperatively.

The Effect of Patient Positioning on Ureteral Efflux During Intraoperative Cystoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify the relationship between patient position during surgery and time to confirmation of ureteral patency on cystoscopy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Academic tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS: A total of 91 adult women undergoing laparoscopic (either conventional or robotic) hysterectomy between February 2021 and February 2022 were randomized to intervention (n = 45) or control (n = 46). Exclusion criteria included known kidney disease or urinary tract anomaly, current ureteral stent, pregnancy, malignancy, and recognized intraoperative urinary tract injury. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects in the control group were placed in a 0° supine position during cystoscopy. Subjects in the intervention group were placed in a 20° angle in reverse Trendelenburg (RT) position during cystoscopy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome, time to confirmation of bilateral ureteral patency, was measured at the time the second ureteral jet was viewed during intraoperative cystoscopy. There was no significant difference in mean time to confirmation (66.5 seconds in supine vs 67 seconds in RT, p = .2) nor in total cystoscopy time (111 seconds in supine vs 104.5 seconds in RT, p = .39). There were no significant differences in need for alternative modalities to aid in ureteral efflux visualization, delayed diagnosis of ureteric injury, and operative time. RT position seemed to have reduced the time to confirmation for the small group of patients with longer confirmation time (>120 seconds). CONCLUSION: RT position does not change time to confirmation of bilateral ureteral patency compared with supine position. However, there may be a benefit in position change if time to confirmation is >120 seconds.

Ureter position and risk of ureteral injury during lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Ureteral injury during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is uncommon. However, it is a serious complication that may require additional surgery should it occur. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether there was any change in the position of the left ureter between preoperative biphasic contrast-enhanced CT scanned in the supine position and intraoperative scanning in the right lateral decubitus position after stent placement, to assess the risk of ureteral injury in the actual surgical position. METHODS: The position of the left ureter scanned with the O-arm navigation system with the patient in the right lateral decubitus position and its position on preoperative biphasic contrast-enhanced CT images scanned with the patient in the supine position were investigated comparing their positions at the L2/3, L3/4, and L4/5 levels. RESULTS: The ureter was located along the interbody cage insertion trajectory in 25 of 44 disc levels (56.8%) in the supine position, but in only 4 (9.5%) in the lateral decubitus position. The proportion of patients in whom the left ureter was located lateral to the vertebral body (along the LLIF cage insertion trajectory) at each level was 80% in the supine position and 15.4% in the lateral decubitus position at the L2/3 level, 53.3% in the supine position and 6.7% in the lateral decubitus position at the L3/4 level, and 33.3% in the supine position and 6.7% in the lateral decubitus position at the L4/5 level. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients in whom the left ureter was located on the lateral surface of the vertebral body when the patient was in the actual surgical position (lateral decubitus position) was 15.4% at the L2/3 level, 6.7% at the L3/4 level, and 6.7% at the L4/5 level, suggesting that caution is required during LLIF surgery.

Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation applying the modified psoas hitch and Lich-Gregoir onlay technique: a 10-step surgical video.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Describe the surgical technique of laparoscopic ureterovesical reimplantation applying the modified psoas hitch with Lich-Gregoire onlay technique to manage a distal ureteral fistula after a hysterectomy for a gynecologic malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This video illustrates the surgical technique of laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation applying the modified psoas hitch with Lich-Gregoire onlay technique in a ten-step surgical video. RESULTS: Step 1: closure of the caudal ureter.Step 2: Ureter mobilization. Step 3: Ureter spatulation. Step 4: Bladder mobilization. Step 5: Detrusor muscle incision. Step 6: Bladder suspension. Step 7: Mucosal incision. Step 8: Ureterovesical anastomosis. Step 9: JJ stent insertion. Step 10: Detrusor muscle closure. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative identification of ureteral injury and prompt repair are recommended. Ureteral repair technique depends on the ureteral injury site. Distal ureteral injuries (UIs) might require either uretero-ureterostomy or ureteral reimplant with or without a psoas hitch. The Lich-Gregoir is one of the two most frequently used anti-vesicoureteral reflux techniques and has acceptable complication rates.

Diagnosis and treatment of left ureteral injury as a rare complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) surgery has been performed as a minimally invasive lateral lumbar fusion technique in recent years. Reports of operative complications of OLIF are limited, and there are fewer reports of ureteral injuries. CASE PRESENTATION: A 62-year-old Chinese woman diagnosed with "lumbar spondylolisthesis (L4 forward slip, I degree)" underwent OLIF treatment. The surgical decompression process was smooth, and the cage was successfully placed. After the expansion sleeve of OLIF was removed, clear liquid continuous outflow from the peritoneum was found. The patient was diagnosed with a ureteral injury. The urological surgeon expanded the original incision, and left ureteral injury anastomosis and ureteral stent implantation were performed. The patient was changed to the prone position and a percutaneous pedicle screw was placed in the corresponding vertebral body. The patient was indwelled with a catheter for 2 weeks, and regular oral administration of levofloxacin to prevent urinary tract infection. After 2 months, the double J tube was removed using a cystoscope. One year after surgery, the symptoms of lumbar back were significantly improved, and there were no urinary system symptoms. However, the patient needed an annual left ureter and kidney B-ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Ureteral injury is a rare complication and is easily missed in OLIF surgery. If the diagnosis is missed, the consequences can be serious. Patients should undergo catheterization before the operation and hematuria should be observed during the operation. We emphasize the careful use of surgical instruments to prevent intraoperative complications. In addition, after withdrawing the leaf in the operation, it is necessary to carefully observe whether a clear liquid continues to leak. If ureteral injury is found, one-stage ureteral injury repair operation should be performed to prevent ureteral stricture.

Very Low Rates of Ureteral Injury in Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Performed by Fellowship-trained Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgeons.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this case series is to evaluate the rates of ureteral injury at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy among high-volume fellowship-trained surgeons. DESIGN: A retrospective chart review was performed, evaluating laparoscopic hysterectomy cases between 2009 and 2019 performed exclusively by fellowship-trained surgeons. SETTING: Division of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (MIGS) at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital, a Harvard Medical School teaching hospital in Boston. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy by one of 5 surgeons with fellowship training in MIGS. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 5160 cases were handled by MIGS surgeons between 2009 and 2019 at our institution. Of these cases, 2345 were laparoscopic hysterectomy cases with available intraoperative and postoperative documentation. Most patients had undergone previous surgeries, and the most common indications for hysterectomy included uterine myomas, pelvic pain/endometriosis, and abnormal uterine bleeding. At the time of hysterectomy, 1 ureteral injury (0.04%) was noted. No additional delayed ureteral injuries were observed. Most patients were discharged home the same day (64.9%) and did not have any postoperative complications (63.9%) as designated by the Clavien-Dindo classification. CONCLUSION: Ureteral injury, although rare, is more prevalent in gynecologic surgery than in other surgical disciplines that have some focus on the pelvis. No study to date has evaluated the effect of surgical training and volume on rates of ureteral injuries. This study retrospectively examined ureteral injury rates for one group of high-volume fellowship-trained surgeons and found their rates to be lower than the national average. Proposals are presented for optimizing training and delivery of gynecologic surgical care to minimize complications.

A 6-year retrospective clinical review of iatrogenic ureteric injuries repaired in a resource-deprived setting.

BACKGROUND: Seventy percent of ureteric injuries result from iatrogenic causes with about 75% of these diagnosed in the postoperative period. It may have fatal complications such as sepsis and or renal functional damage increasing morbidity and treatment cost. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to identify the risk factors for iatrogenic ureteric injuries from open surgical procedures and the intervention outcome in a resource-poor setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multi-centre study. The clinical records of patients with iatrogenic ureteric injuries seen between 2015-2021 who were managed at the urology units of the Margaret Marquart Catholic Hospital, and the Ho Teaching Hospital, in the Volta region of Ghana, were retrieved. The data extracted included patients' demographic factors, the clinical presentation, the primary surgery details, the time from surgery to presentation, the intervention offered, and the outcomes. The data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 24.0. RESULTS: Twelve patients aged between 24-54 years with a total of 19 ureteric injuries were managed. The injuries resulted from a hysterectomy in 10 cases (83.3%), and one each from emergency caesarean section and inguinal hernia repair with traction and transection injuries respectively (16.7%). Seven out of 12 cases were diagnosed 48 h after surgery. Bilateral injuries occurred in 7 cases (14/19 injuries). Intraoperative recognition was common in unilateral injuries and surgeries performed by specialist surgeons. Ureteroneocystostomy (14/19), uretero-ureterostomy (1/19), and open suture release were the management procedures performed as in the intervention. CONCLUSION: Open hysterectomy (83.7%) was the most common procedure leading to iatrogenic ureteric injuries in this study. Intra-operative recognition occurred when trained specialist surgeons performed the surgery. Late presentation with more severe morbidity was found amongst non-specialist surgeons. Thus, improvement in training to allow intra-operative diagnosis should be encouraged in general practitioners to reduce morbidity and improve outcomes.

Trends in ureteral surgery on an academic gynecologic oncology service.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence, complications, and trends associated with ureteral surgeries on a gynecologic oncology service in the context of a fellowship training program over a 24-year period. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of ureteral surgeries by gynecologic oncologists at either Moffitt Cancer Center or Tampa General Hospital from 1997 to 2020. Patient characteristics, predisposing factors, location and type of injury, repair method, postoperative management and complications were abstracted from the medical record. The recent cohort (2005-2020) was compared to our prior series (1997-2004). RESULTS: Eighty-eight cases were included. The average number of ureteral surgeries per year decreased from 5.75 (1997-2004) to 2.63 (2005-2020). Of 46 iatrogenic injuries, 45 were recognized and repaired intraoperatively. Ureteral transection was the most common type (85% [39 of 46]) and the distal 5 cm was the most common location of injury (63% [29 of 46]). Ureteroneocystostomy was the most common method of repair (83% [73 of 88]). Postoperative management, including stenting and imaging, has not changed significantly. Length of urinary catheter usage decreased in the recent cohort without associated complications. Five patients had major postoperative complications and 4 involved the urinary tract. Of those with follow-up, 96% (66 of 69) of ureteroneocystostomies and 75% (9 of 12) of ureteroureterostomies had radiologically normal urinary tracts. CONCLUSIONS: Ureteral surgery is necessary in the case of injury or involvement with invasive disease. There has been a decrease in number of procedures. Ureteroneocystostomy has remained the most common method of reconstruction for both injury and resection with acceptable postoperative complication rates.

British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) consensus document: management of bladder and ureteric injury.

Injuries to the bladder and ureter are uncommon but usually require prompt urological management. Due to their infrequent nature, Urologists maybe unfamiliar with managing these acute problems and may not work in specialist centres with readily available expertise in open and abdominal surgery. We aim to provide advice in the form of a consensus statement led by the Female, Neurological and Urodynamic Urology (FNUU) Section of the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS), in consultation with BAUS members and consultants working in units throughout the UK, to create a comprehensive management pathway and a series of statements to aid clinicians.

Iatrogenic Ureteral Injury and Prophylactic Stent Use in Veterans Undergoing Colorectal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI) is an uncommon complication in colorectal surgery. Prophylactic ureteral stenting (PUS) gained acceptance to aid in intraoperative identification of the ureter. Despite its use, the benefit of pus to avoid IUI remains debatable. We sought to analyze the rates of IUI after colorectal surgery in veterans and to compare the outcomes after PUS using a large matched cohort. METHODS: The veterans affairs surgical quality improvement program database was queried for patients who underwent colorectal surgery from 2008-2015. To analyze the outcomes of PUS, we created two matched groups using propensity-score matching accounting for demographical and clinical cofactors to assess variable outcomes. Cross-tabulation was used to calculate rates of IUI and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate risk factors associated with IUI. RESULTS: 27,448 patients were identified and 458 underwent PUS placement (1.6%). The majority of procedures were performed electively and with an open approach. Mean age was 65 y, 96.3% were male, and colorectal cancer was the most common indication. 45 patients (0.2%) were diagnosed with IUI. IUI incidence was higher in female patients, after left-sided colorectal resection, and in those undergoing open procedures. After matching, PUS use was associated with longer length of stay and operative time and increased creatinine levels from baseline. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that the use of PUS is independently associated with increased operative time and change in creatinine levels. Although no IUI occurred in the PUS group, this finding was not statistically significant. The risk and/or benefit ratio of PUS should be considered for each individual case, with its selective use based on the presence of risk factors for IUI, such as female patients and left-sided resections.

Intraureteral indocyanine green augments ureteral identification and avoidance during complex robotic-assisted colorectal surgery.

AIM: Up to 10% of patients who undergo nonurological abdominopelvic operations suffer a ureteral injury. While preoperative ureteral stenting to facilitate identification of the ureter is common, it does not reduce the incidence of intraoperative ureteral injury and is not without risk. As we continue to broaden the application of minimally invasive surgical techniques, a new form of ureteral identification and avoidance that does not rely on tactile feedback is needed. We report our initial experience with intraureteral indocyanine green (ICG) for ureteral identification and avoidance during complex robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. METHOD: Patients undergoing adjunctive ureteral identification during robotic-assisted colorectal surgery were prospectively identified. Each patient underwent intraureteral ICG administration using rigid cystoscopy (22 Fr). A 5-Fr open-ended ureteral catheter was inserted up to 20 cm and used to inject 5 ml of 2.5 mg/ml ICG as the catheter was withdrawn to the ureteral orifice. Intraureteral ICG was then detected using near-infrared laser fluorescence technology (Firefly®). RESULTS: Successful ICG-enhanced ureteral identification and avoidance was performed in 15 of 16 (94%) patients undergoing robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. The median ICG instillation time was 11.5 min (range 4-21 min) and the median operative time with ICG visualization was 489 min (8 h 9 min) [range 268-738 min (4 h 28 min-12 h 18 min)]. No patient experienced intraoperative ureteral injury and there were no adverse sequelae or complications associated with intraureteral ICG administration. CONCLUSION: Intraureteral ICG is a safe and effective method of intraoperative ureteral identification and avoidance during complex robotic-assisted colorectal surgery. Precise and prolonged ureteral visualization was achieved, allowing for long operative times compatible with complex robotic-assisted operations.

Ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery and the impact of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approaches.

BACKGROUND: Ureteral injury is a feared complication in colorectal surgery that has been increasing over the past decade. Some have attributed this to an increased adoption of minimally invasive surgery (MIS), but the literature is hardly conclusive. In this study we aim to further assess the overall trend of ureteral injuries in colorectal surgery, and investigate propensity adjusted contributions from open and MIS to include robotic-assisted surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of colorectal surgeries from 2006 to 2016 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify predisposing and protective factors. Demographics, hospital factors, and case-mix differences for open and MIS were accounted for via propensity analysis. The NIS coding structure changed in 2015, which could introduce a potential source of incongruity in complication rates over time. As a result, all statistical analyses included only the first nine years of data, or were conducted before and after the change for comparison. RESULTS: Of 514,162 colorectal surgeries identified there were 1598 ureteral injuries (0.31%). Ureteral injuries were found to be increasing through 2015 (2.3/1000 vs 3.3/1000; p < 0.001) and through the coding transition to 2016 (4.8/1000; p < 0.001). This trend was entirely accounted for by injuries made during open surgery, with decreasing injury rates for MIS over time. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) for ureteral injury with all MIS vs. open cases was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.93, p = 0.003) and for robotic-assisted surgery alone versus open cases was 0.50 (95% CI 0.33-0.77, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rate of ureteral injuries during open colorectal surgery is increasing over time, but have been stable or decreasing for MIS cases. These findings hold even after using propensity score analysis. More research is needed to further delineate the impact of MIS and robotic-assisted surgery on ureteral injuries.