Complex Ureteral Reconstruction via Open or Robotic Ureteroplasty with a Buccal Mucosa Onlay Graft: A Two-center Comparison

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY European Urology Open Science Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.euros.2024.11.002
Antonio Andrea Grosso , Fabrizio Di Maida , Daniele Paganelli , Simon Udo Engelmann , Emily Rinderknecht , Christoph Eckl , Sebastian Kälble , Alexey Barskov , Rino Oriti , Sofia Giudici , Christoph Pickl , Maximilian Burger , Andrea Mari , Andrea Minervini , Roman Mayr
{"title":"Complex Ureteral Reconstruction via Open or Robotic Ureteroplasty with a Buccal Mucosa Onlay Graft: A Two-center Comparison","authors":"Antonio Andrea Grosso ,&nbsp;Fabrizio Di Maida ,&nbsp;Daniele Paganelli ,&nbsp;Simon Udo Engelmann ,&nbsp;Emily Rinderknecht ,&nbsp;Christoph Eckl ,&nbsp;Sebastian Kälble ,&nbsp;Alexey Barskov ,&nbsp;Rino Oriti ,&nbsp;Sofia Giudici ,&nbsp;Christoph Pickl ,&nbsp;Maximilian Burger ,&nbsp;Andrea Mari ,&nbsp;Andrea Minervini ,&nbsp;Roman Mayr","doi":"10.1016/j.euros.2024.11.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>Management of a long proximal ureteral stricture is challenging. Buccal mucosal graft (BMG) ureteroplasty is a reliable technique for ureteral reconstruction that avoids the morbidity of bowel interposition or autotransplantation. We compared open and robotic BMG ureteroplasty in a two-center study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We compared prospectively recorded data for 26 patients who underwent robotic or open BMG ureteroplasty at two academic institutions. Stricture location and length, previous reconstructive interventions, complications, and success rates were assessed and compared. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>We compared ten patients in the robotic group and 16 in the open group. Stricture location had similar distributions in the open versus robotic group (pelvic junction, 25% vs 20%; proximal ureter, 56.3% vs 60%; middle ureter, 18.7% vs 20%). Median stricture length was significantly longer in the robotic group (26 vs 17 mm; <em>p</em> = 0.01). The rate of previous reconstructive interventions was higher in the robotic group (80% vs 37.5%; <em>p</em> = 0.001). However, previous reconstructive interventions were more complex for the open surgery group. There were no intraoperative complications, and postoperative complication rates were similar in the open and robotic groups (18.7% vs 20%; <em>p</em> = 0.19). Median intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (300 vs 175 ml; <em>p</em> = 0.03). The success rate was 93.7% in the open group and 90.0% in robotic group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>We observed high success rates and low perioperative morbidity for both open and robotic BMG ureteroplasty. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>Narrowing of the ureter, which is the tube draining urine from the kidney into the bladder, may need surgical treatment. For reconstruction of long segments, use of a tissue graft from the inside of the mouth is an effective surgical option. Robot-assisted surgery is as safe as open surgery and is associated with lower blood loss.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12254,"journal":{"name":"European Urology Open Science","volume":"71 ","pages":"Pages 125-131"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11722170/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Urology Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666168324014253","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objective

Management of a long proximal ureteral stricture is challenging. Buccal mucosal graft (BMG) ureteroplasty is a reliable technique for ureteral reconstruction that avoids the morbidity of bowel interposition or autotransplantation. We compared open and robotic BMG ureteroplasty in a two-center study.

Methods

We compared prospectively recorded data for 26 patients who underwent robotic or open BMG ureteroplasty at two academic institutions. Stricture location and length, previous reconstructive interventions, complications, and success rates were assessed and compared. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

Key findings and limitations

We compared ten patients in the robotic group and 16 in the open group. Stricture location had similar distributions in the open versus robotic group (pelvic junction, 25% vs 20%; proximal ureter, 56.3% vs 60%; middle ureter, 18.7% vs 20%). Median stricture length was significantly longer in the robotic group (26 vs 17 mm; p = 0.01). The rate of previous reconstructive interventions was higher in the robotic group (80% vs 37.5%; p = 0.001). However, previous reconstructive interventions were more complex for the open surgery group. There were no intraoperative complications, and postoperative complication rates were similar in the open and robotic groups (18.7% vs 20%; p = 0.19). Median intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (300 vs 175 ml; p = 0.03). The success rate was 93.7% in the open group and 90.0% in robotic group.

Conclusions and clinical implications

We observed high success rates and low perioperative morbidity for both open and robotic BMG ureteroplasty. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss.

Patient summary

Narrowing of the ureter, which is the tube draining urine from the kidney into the bladder, may need surgical treatment. For reconstruction of long segments, use of a tissue graft from the inside of the mouth is an effective surgical option. Robot-assisted surgery is as safe as open surgery and is associated with lower blood loss.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过开放输尿管成形术或机器人输尿管成形术联合颊粘膜板移植物重建复杂输尿管:两中心比较。
背景和目的:长输尿管近端狭窄的治疗具有挑战性。颊粘膜移植(BMG)输尿管成形术是一种可靠的输尿管重建技术,可避免肠道插置或自体移植的发病率。我们在一项双中心研究中比较了开放式和机器人 BMG 输尿管成形术:我们比较了在两家学术机构接受机器人或开放式 BMG 输尿管成形术的 26 位患者的前瞻性记录数据。评估并比较了狭窄位置和长度、之前的重建干预、并发症和成功率。进行了描述性统计分析:我们对机器人手术组的10名患者和开放手术组的16名患者进行了比较。开放手术组和机器人手术组的狭窄位置分布相似(骨盆交界处,25% 对 20%;输尿管近端,56.3% 对 60%;输尿管中部,18.7% 对 20%)。机器人组的中位狭窄长度明显更长(26 mm vs 17 mm; p = 0.01)。机器人组既往接受过重建手术的比例更高(80% 对 37.5%;P = 0.001)。不过,开放手术组的既往再造手术更为复杂。开放手术组和机器人手术组没有术中并发症,术后并发症发生率相似(18.7% vs 20%; p = 0.19)。机器人手术组的术中失血量明显降低(300 毫升对 175 毫升;P = 0.03)。开腹组的成功率为 93.7%,机器人组为 90.0%:我们观察到,开放式和机器人 BMG 输尿管成形术的成功率高,围手术期发病率低。患者总结:输尿管是将尿液从肾脏排入膀胱的管道,输尿管狭窄可能需要手术治疗。对于长段输尿管的重建,使用口腔内部的组织移植是一种有效的手术选择。机器人辅助手术与开放手术一样安全,而且失血量较少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Urology Open Science
European Urology Open Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1183
审稿时长
49 days
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and Clinical Implications of Post-obstruction Hyperdiuresis Among Patients with Urinary Retention: A Mini Review Renal Mass Biopsy Prior to Surgical Excision: Practice, Diagnostic Performance, and Impact on Management in the UroCCR Registry (Ancillary Study No. 118) Meta-analysis of Germline Whole-exome Sequencing in 1435 Cases of Testicular Germ Cell Tumour to Evaluate Disruptive Mutations Under Dominant, Recessive, and X-linked Inheritance Models Incidence and Risk of Thromboembolic and Cardiovascular Adverse Events with PARP Inhibitor Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Safety Meta-analysis Biochemical Hypogonadism in Aging Testicular Cancer Survivors: A Clinical Challenge
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1