The Urologist and the Appendix: A Review of Appendiceal Use in Genitourinary Reconstructive Surgery.

Recently, genitourinary reconstruction has experienced a renaissance. Over the past several years, there has been an expansion of the literature regarding the use of buccal mucosa for the repair of complex ureteral strictures and other pathologies. The appendix has been an available graft utilized for the repair of ureteral stricture disease and has been infrequently reported since the early 1900s. This review serves to highlight the use of the appendix for reconstruction in urology, particularly focusing on the anatomy and physiology of the appendix, historical use, and current applications, particularly in robotic upper tract reconstruction.

A Multi-Institutional Experience With Robotic Appendiceal Ureteroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: To report a multi-institutional experience with robotic appendiceal ureteroplasty. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 13 patients undergoing right appendiceal flap ureteroplasty at 2 institutions between April 2016 and October 2019. The primary endpoint was surgical success defined by the absence of flank pain and radiographic evidence of ureteral patency. RESULTS: Eight of 13 (62%) underwent appendiceal onlay while 5/13 (38%) underwent appendiceal interposition. Mean length of stricture was 6.5 cm (range 1.5-15 cm) affecting anywhere along the right ureter. Mean operative time was 337 minutes (range 206-583), mean estimated blood loss was 116 mL (range 50-600), and median length of stay was 2.5 days (range 1-9). Balloon dilation was required in 1/12 (8%). One patient died on postoperative day 0 due to a sudden cardiovascular event. Otherwise, there were no complications (Clavien-Dindo > 2) within 30 days from surgery. At a mean follow up of 14.6 months, 11/12 (92%) were successful. CONCLUSION: Robotic appendiceal ureteroplasty for right ureteral strictures is a versatile technique with high success rates across institutions.

Complete substitution of the left ureter with vermicular appendix during hemicolectomy for cancer in an adult patient.

We demonstrated that a complete left ureteral substitution with appendix is a feasible and safe technique. To our knowledge, this is the first case of a successful complete substitution of the left ureter with vermicular appendix in an adult patient reported in the literature.

Appendix or Ileum-Which is the Best Material for Mitrofanoff Channel Formation in Adults?

PURPOSE: We report long-term data on a large cohort of adults who underwent formation of a continent catheterizable channel for various indications. We examined outcomes according to the tissue used for channel formation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the case notes of 176 consecutive adult patients in whom a continent catheterizable channel was created using the Mitrofanoff principle for a broad range of indications a median of 142 months (range 54 to 386) previously. We evaluated outcomes in terms of continued use and continence for each type of material used for channel formation. RESULTS: At the time of this review 165 of the 173 patients (95.4%) included in this study were alive. We included 114 women (65.9%) and 59 men (34.1%) who underwent surgery at a median age of 42 years (range 18 to 73) with a mean followup of 78.6 months (median 60, range 2 to 365). The rate of revision for all causes was higher in the ileal group than in the group with an appendiceal channel (channel stenosis rate 22.7% vs 17.2%, p = 0.39, and channel incontinence rate 36.0% vs 19.5%, p = 0.03). Although 38.7% of patients underwent major surgical revision of the channel at some point, 75.9% of channels continued to be used, of which 90.2% were continent. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a pragmatic overview of the outcome of these challenging cases. Mitrofanoff channel formation represents a durable technique. Appendix and ileum are each a viable choice for tissue use. Tissue selection depends on availability and individual patient factors.

Mesoappendix as potential donor site for vascularized lymph node transfer: anatomic study.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for treatment of lymphedema is manual lymphatic drainage and compression therapy, which is time intensive and requires a life-long commitment. Autologous lymph node transfer is a microsurgical treatment in which a vascularized lymph node flap is harvested with its blood supply and transferred to the lymphedematous region to assist with lymph fluid clearance. An ideal donor lymph node site minimizes the risk of iatrogenic lymphedema and other donor site morbidity. To address this, we have used jejunal mesentery lymph nodes and omental flaps and hypothesize that the mesoappendix, as a "spare part," may be an ideal autologous lymph node transfer donor site. METHODS: In this Institutional Review Board-approved study, 25 mesoappendix pathology specimens resected for benign disease underwent gross pathologic examination for the presence of lymph nodes and measurement of the appendicular artery and vein caliber and length. RESULTS: A single lymph node was present in two of 25 specimens (8%). Mean arterial and vein calibers at the point of ligation were 0.87 ± 0.44 mm and 0.86 ± 0.48 mm (range 0.30-2.2 mm and 0.25-2.2 mm), respectively. Mean arterial and vein length was 1.70 ± 1.06 cm and 1.84 ± 1.09 cm (range 0.8-4.5 cm for each), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The mesoappendix rarely contains a lymph node. The artery and vein calibers of 46% of the specimens were greater than 0.8 mm, the minimum caliber preferred for microsurgical anastomosis. If transplantation of a vascularized lymph node for the treatment of lymphedema is desired, the mesoappendix is inconsistent in providing adequate lymph nodes.

Left ureteral appendiceal interposition: Exercise caution and do not be mislead by postoperative radiological obstruction

ABSTRACT Postoperative imaging after appendiceal ureteral interposition may be difficult to interpret, misguiding the urologist towards intervention. We present a case in which radiological obstruction was not endorsed by a 99TcDTPA nephrogram, with favorable outcome after conservative treatment.

Left ureteral appendiceal interposition: exercise caution and do not be mislead by postoperative radiological obstruction.

Postoperative imaging after appendiceal ureteral interposition may be difficult to interpret, misguiding the urologist towards intervention. We present a case in which radiological obstruction was not endorsed by a 99TcDTPA nephrogram, with favorable outcome after conservative treatment.

[Technical features of uretral intestinoplasty. Part 3: laparoscopic ileo- and appendiceal ureteroplasty].

PURPOSE: Presentation of the results and the technical features of the laparoscopic intestinal and appendicular ureteroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2015, intestinal and appendicular ureteroplasty was performed in 103 patients. ileum was used for the replacement of ureteral defects in 78 (75.7%) patients, appendix - in 21 (20.4%), and colon - in 4 (3.9%). In 10 (9.7%) cases, the surgery was performed laparoscopically. Among them, 7 patients underwent ileoureteroplasty (6 - laparoscopic ileoureterocystoanastomosis, 1 - right-sided laparoscopic ileoureterocystoanastomosis by Yang-Monti) and 3 patients underwent appendiceal ureteroplasty. In one case, ileoureteroplasy was performed in patient with complete ureter duplication. RESULTS: The period of follow-up varied from 2 to 14 years, and the average follow-up period was 8+/-5.8 years. Complications occurred in 8 (8.1%) patients who underwent open ileo- and appendiceal ureteroplasty. Among the 10 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery complications were not observed. The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (median, 6 days) than in patients who underwent open surgery (median, 12 days). The results of treatment in all patients were successful. There were no fatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: The use of endovideosurgery for intestinal and appendicular ureteroplasty reduces surgical injury and reduces the length of hospital stay. However, there are not enough publications on this issue available in modern literature. To date, there are few number of operations performed, and it is not allow to consider the findings and conclusions as statistically significant.

[Technical features of intestinal ureteroplasty. part 5: bilateral ureteroplasty].

AIM: To present the results and the technical features of the various methods of bilateral ileal ureteroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2016, 154 patients (mean age 52+/-9.2 years) underwent ileal and appendicular substitution of the ureter and urinary bladder. Study participants comprised 70 (45.4%) men and 84 (54.6%) women. All patients underwent comprehensive examination, including ultrasound, X-ray, radioisotope and endoscopic tests. Bilateral isolated ileal ureteroplasty was performed in 20 patients (40 substituted ureters) whereof in 14, 5 and 1 cases U-shaped, 7-shaped and two separate grafts were used, respectively. RESULTS: Postoperative complications occurred in 2 (10%) of 20 patients who underwent bilateral intestinal ureteroplasty. Acute small bowel obstruction occurred in a patient after a U-shaped substitution of extended defects of both ureters. He underwent relaparotomy, bypass ileotransverse side-to-side anastomosis. Another patient developed right-sided ureteral-intestinal anastomotic leak following bilateral 7-shaped ureteroplasty. After relaparotomy and right ureter ligation, the breakdown site of the graft was closed with suturing. Repeat operations were successful; there were no deaths. CONCLUSION: Bilateral ileal ureteroplasty is much more complicated surgery than a unilateral operation. For proper collection and preparation of ileal graft in isoperistaltic position without mesenteric torsion, one should know how to place it in relation to intestinal anastomosis. Depending on this, several types of bilateral ileal ureteroplasty may be used: U-shaped, bilateral 7-, J- or L-shaped or separate isoperistaltic ileoureteroplasty.

Use of robotic-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy in a paediatric patient: problem encountered.

This report is of robotic-assisted laparoscopic Mitrofanoff appendicovesicostomy in a 12-year-old patient with detrusor underactivity and hereditary sensory neuropathy. The whole operation was performed in 555 minutes with no open conversion. The patient experienced one episode of stomal stenosis, which required dilatation. At 3-year follow-up, the patient had both stomal and urinary continence. This is a safe and effective procedure to create a means of urinary catheterisation with avoidance of a large unsightly scar and comparable clinical outcome to an open procedure.

Review of appendiceal onlay flap in the management of complex ureteric strictures in six patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate appendiceal onlay flap ureteroplasty for repairing complex right proximal and mid-ureteric strictures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between August 2006 and August 2012 four women and two men (mean age 34.2 years) underwent right laparoscopic appendiceal onlay flap ureteroplasty. The mean stricture length was 2.5 cm. Stricture formation was secondary to impacted ureteric stones in three patients and failed pyeloplasty for congenital pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction in the remaining three. Each patient had ipsilateral flank pain before surgery. RESULTS: The mean operating time, estimated blood loss and hospital stay were 244 min, 175 mL and 3.2 days, respectively. No intra- or peri-operative complications were noted. The objective success rate was 100% (all patients had radiographic and/or endoscopic resolution of their ureteric strictures). The subjective success rate was 66%, (two patients developed recurrent discomfort, which upon exploration was found to be attributable to fibrosis away from the appendiceal onlay graft, where the gonadal vessels crossed the ureter). Both patients with recurrent pain underwent laparoscopic ureterolysis and bladder advancement flap proximal to the appendiceal onlay, which markedly improved one patient's pain but the other patient continued to have discomfort, ultimately resulting in a laparoscopic nephroureterectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Appendiceal onlay ureteroplasty is a viable treatment option for patients with complex right proximal and mid-ureteric strictures, while minimising the potential morbidity of appendiceal and ileal interposition.

[Repair of right ureteral stenosis by traumatic injury with appendiceal interposition: a case report].

We report a repair of a right ureteral stenosis with the appendix as a ureteral substitute. A 20-year-old male suffered a traumatic injury in a motorcycle accident. He underwent an emergency operation for right hemothorax, intraabdominal hemorrhage, and bone fracture of right leg. Three weeks later, right hydronephrosis and urinoma were identified. Combined retrograde and antegrade pyelography demonstrated a severe 7 cm long stenosis in the right upper ureter. After an indwelling right nephrostomy catheter was placed, he returned to the hospital for a ureteral reconstruction. We planned to substitute the appendix to bridge the stenotic ureter. After transecting the appendix from the cecum, the mesoappendix was spatulated from mesoileum. Ureteral tissue was resected and appendix was interposed. Three weeks later, ureteral stent was removed. DTPA diuretic renogram scintigraphy demonstrated no evidence of obstruction five weeks later. Two years postoperatively, the patient was asymptomatic and his renal function was normal. Although only few cases of ureteral repair with appendix are known, uretero-appandix replacement is less invasive and complicated, and recommended in some cases.

Free and pedicled appendix transfer for various reconstructive procedures.

INTRODUCTION: The appendix has a constant vascular anatomy and provides a small lumen that always maintains its patency because of mucosal secretion and motility; thus, it serves as an ideal conduit structurally. The appendix has been used in urologic surgeries as a pedicled flap and as a free flap in isolated case reports for the reconstruction of the urethra. However, this study proposes more extended applications of the appendix in different kinds of reconstruction. METHODS: From 2002 to 2011, 11 patients were included in this study retrospectively. Of these cases, 8 were transferred as free flaps, whereas the other 3 were pedicle flaps. Among the 8 free appendix transfers (A and B), 5 of them were used for voice reconstruction by creating a tracheoesophageal fistula; the other 3 were transferred to reconstruct the male urethra. Among the 3 pedicled appendix transfer, 2 were used for reconstruction of cervix and vagina, whereas the other was used for reconstruction of esophagus and voice tube simultaneously after ablation of cancers in the hypopharynx and esophagus. RESULTS: All cases showed successful results not only structurally but also functionally. As for voice reconstruction, the appendix serves as an autologous fistula between the trachea and the esophagus with minimal complications and no aspirations. The intelligibility and loudness were fair to excellent, whereas fluency required persistent training and practice.For patients who underwent urethral reconstruction, their micturition was smooth with ease postoperatively. Two of the patients also received penile reconstruction with fibula osteocutaneous flap simultaneously during the urethral reconstruction.As for reconstruction of cervix and vagina, pedicled appendix-cecum-colon-complex is a great option offering long-term patency with an expandable diameter up to 2.5 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Appendix has a reliable vascularity and a unique structure for reconstruction of conduit-like organs, and combining its adjacent bowel segments, including ileum, cecum, and colon, during tissue transfer not only increases its length but provides more applications and possibilities for reconstruction of different parts of the body. Removal of the appendix carries minimal morbidity. Our study proved the applicability and reliability of free and pedicled appendix transfer.

Reemplazo ureteral con apéndice cecal / Ureteral replacement with cecal appendix

We report two cases with ureteral lesions. A 34 years male with a residual retroperitoneal mass caused by a testicular cancer, that persisted after chemotherapy. During the surgical excision of the mass, the involvement of the right ureter was discovered. A 43 years old female with a left ureteral lesion secondary to radiation therapy and with a non-functioning contralateral kidney. In both cases a ureteral replacement with the cecal appendix was performed, without surgical complications. After five years of follow up, the urinary tract of the male patient is normal. The female patient required an endoscopic incision of the connection between the appendix and the urinary bladder, eight years after the surgical procedure. Three years after the endoscopic procedure the repaired urinary tract is in good conditions.

Objetivo: Presentar dos casos de reemplazo ureteral con apéndice cecal y revisar la literatura relacionada al tema. Material y Método: Presentamos dos casos de lesión ureteral. Un paciente de 34 años con masa retroperitoneal residual post quimioterapia englobando el uréter derecho, secundaria a un tumor testicular, y una paciente de 43 años monorrena funcional con lesión ureteral izquierda actínica. Resultados: En ambos casos se realizó un reemplazo ureteral, derecho e izquierdo, sin complicaciones intraoperatorias. El seguimiento alejado a 5 y 11 años muestra indemnidad de la vía urinaria. Conclusión: Estos 2 casos, con seguimiento prolongado, apoyan la factibilidad del uso del apéndice cecal como variante para el reemplazo ureteral en lesiones extensas.

Ureteral replacement with appendix in pediatric renal transplantation.

Ureteral necrosis is an uncommon complication following RT which can adversely affect outcome. Even though authors agree that the native ureter ought to be preserved, there are cases in which graft function can only be salvaged by ureteral substitution. The scant references in the literature on the use of the appendix for left ureteral replacement in children prompted us to report the following two cases in whom the technique was employed and to assess the evolution of graft function in these patients.