Long-term results of treatment for ureteroenteric strictures.

OBJECTIVES: To review the long-term outcome for ureteroenteric stricture treatment. METHODS: The ileal conduit diversions that formed ureteroenteric strictures from 1966 to 1999 were reviewed. The strictures were diagnosed radiographically, and malignancy was excluded. The treatment, location, length, diameter, and timing of stricture development after conduit creation was evaluated and compared regarding the time until stricture recurrence (failure). Success was defined as symptomatic improvement and radiologic evidence of patency. RESULTS: Forty patients, after exclusions, returned for ureteroenteric stricture repair, comprising 79 procedures (27 open repairs and 52 balloon dilations). The open repair had a success rate at 1, 2, and 3 years of 92%, 87%, and 76%, respectively. Seven of the open cases were preceded by failed dilations. Balloon dilation had a success rate at 1, 2, and 3 years of 15%, 15%, and 5%, respectively (P = 0.0001 versus open). Similar patency results for open versus balloon (P = 0.0001) were noted with analysis restricted to each patient's first stricture repair. Strictures greater than 1.0 cm were more likely to recur (P = 0.03). All strictures forming within 6 months of the conduit creation were treated with dilation and failed within 1 year. Of note, 11 of the 40 patients were found to have less than 25% renal function on the strictured side. CONCLUSIONS: Open repair for ureteroenteric strictures offers excellent long-term patency (76% at 3 years, P = 0.0001). On review, balloon dilation appeared to have less successful patency rates and was often followed by open repair after failure. Patients with a history of anastomotic strictures should be closely monitored to avoid renal damage and failure.

Factors influencing patient satisfaction with GI endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: A modified Group Health Association of America-9 survey (mGHAA-9) was recently proposed for measurement of patient satisfaction with endoscopy. It is unknown whether the mGHAA-9 addresses the issues most important to this outcome. METHODS: A 15-item survey of factors potentially important to patient satisfaction with endoscopy was developed, including the 6 core mGHAA-9 items. Respondents were asked to rank the factors from 1 to 15 (1 = most important to l5 = least important to satisfaction). Two groups were surveyed: (1) patients with prior endoscopy experience and (2) physician endoscopists. Item rank distributions overall and by patient age, gender, and procedure experience were examined. RESULTS: Of 559 outpatients surveyed, 437 (78%) provided complete responses. The mean patient age was 59 years (48.7% female, 45.3% male, 6% not stated). The number 1 ranked factor was the endoscopist's technical skills (median ranking (mr) = 1), an item included in the mGHAA-9. Pain control, a factor not assessed by the mGHAA-9, was second (mr = 4), and ranked number 1 by 16% of patients. Item rankings were consistent across patient subgroups. Relative to patients, endoscopists underprioritized preprocedure and postprocedure communication. CONCLUSIONS: The mGHAA-9 has inadequate content validity for measurement of patient satisfaction with endoscopy because it does not assess pain control. However, endoscopy satisfaction measurement with a single, universally applied instrument appears feasible.