Robot-assisted Complex Urinary Tract Reconstruction Using Intestinal Segments: Redefining the Paradigm
Author:
KUSHWAHA SWAPNIL SINGH1, KALRA SIDHARTHA1, N DORAIRAJAN L1, S SREERAG K1, ALI MUJAHID1, PURUSHOTHAMAN JITHESH1, KHURANA CHIRANJEET SINGH1
Affiliation:
1. Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research
Abstract
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Complex urinary tract reconstruction has significantly advanced with the increasing use of robot-assisted procedures. Robotic surgery aims to achieve the same outcomes as open surgery while minimizing morbidity by causing less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, and reducing complications. This article shares our technique, challenges encountered, and experience of robot-assisted complex urinary tract reconstruction using intestinal segments.
METHODOLOGY:
Between January 2020 to March 2022, 6 patients who underwent robot-assisted complex urinary tract reconstruction using intestinal segments at our centre were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic, clinical, and operative data were recorded. Patients underwent renal function tests, blood gas analysis, and radiographic imaging in the follow-up. Symptomatic and radiologic relief were the criteria for success.
RESULTS:
Out of 6 cases, three patients underwent ileal ureter replacement, two combined ileal ureter with augmentation ileo-cystoplasty and one augmentation ileo-cystoplasty alone. The mean age, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and follow-up period were 32.6 years, 110 ± 13.1 mL, 7.0 ± 1.1days, and 11.3 months respectively. The indications for surgery were either benign ureteral stricture following lithotripsy or sequelae of genitourinary tuberculosis. No intra-operative complications were found. Clavien-Dindo grade-II and Grade-III were found in three and one patient, respectively. During follow-up, none had compromised renal function or acidosis.
CONCLUSION:
Robot-assisted complex urinary tract reconstruction using intestinal segments is safe and offers the advantages of minimally invasive techniques. Techniques demonstrated in this article make these reconstructions feasible with good surgical and clinical outcomes.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference19 articles.
1. M. Takeuchi, N. Masumori, and T. Tsukamoto, “Ureteral reconstruction with bowel segments: experience with eight patients in a single institute,” Korean J. Urol., vol. 55, no. 11, pp. 742–749, Nov. 2014, doi: 10.4111/kju.2014.55.11.742. 2. W. E. Goodwin, C. C. Winter, and R. D. Turner, “Replacement of the ureter by small intestine: clinical application and results of the ileal ureter,” J. Urol., vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 406–418, Mar. 1959, doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)66035-x. 3. P. N. Dogra, S. K. Regmi, P. Singh, G. Bora, A. K. Saini, and S. Aggarwal, “Robot-assisted laparoscopic augmentation ileocystoplasty in a tubercular bladder,” Urol. Ann., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 152–155, Apr. 2014, doi: 10.4103/0974-7796.130647. 4. I. S. Gill, S. J. Savage, A. J. Senagore, and G. T. Sung, “Laparoscopic ileal ureter,” J. Urol., vol. 163, no. 4, pp. 1199–1202, Apr. 2000. 5. N. Kamat and P. Khandelwal, “Laparoscopy-assisted ileal ureter creation for multiple tuberculous strictures: report of two cases,” J. Endourol., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 388–393, Jun. 2006, doi: 10.1089/end.2006.20.388.
|
|