Ureteroileal anastomosis with intraluminal visualization: technique and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES Although the ileal conduit is the most well-established urinary diversion, the optimal technique for ureteroileal anastomosis remains controversial. Here, we present a technique for anastomosis of the ureters from within the lumen of the ileal conduit, under direct visualization. We examine the rate of ureteral stricture using this method, and review the literature regarding ureteroenteric anastomotic complications with various techniques. METHODS An intraluminal technique for ureteroenteric anastomsosis was performed by opening the conduit on the antimesenteric border to allow direct visualization of the ureteroileal anastomosis. Using our prospectively collected database, we investigated the prevalence of anastomotic stricture in patients undergoing urinary diversion using this method for anastomosis. RESULTS One-hundred eighteen patients underwent ileal conduit diversion with ureteroileal anastomoses performed as described. Median postoperative follow-up was 15 months. Ureteral strictures were identified in 5/118 patients (4.2%). Of the patients with strictures, one was successfully treated with endoscopic balloon dilatation, three were managed with chronic ureteral stents, and one was managed with a chronic percutaneous nephrostomy. Review of the recent literature reveals stricture rates up to 10% with current techniques. CONCLUSIONS We conclude from these results that during ileal conduit creation, intraluminal anastomosis of the ureters to the ileal segment under direct vision represents a viable alternative to other techniques, with complication rates that compare favorably with other reported series.

[1]  E. Wallen,et al.  A comparison of the Bricker versus Wallace ureteroileal anastomosis in patients undergoing urinary diversion for bladder cancer. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[2]  W. Pitts,et al.  A 20-year experience with ileal conduits: the fate of the kidneys. , 1979, The Journal of urology.

[3]  Yair Lotan,et al.  Outcomes of radical cystectomy for transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder: a contemporary series from the Bladder Cancer Research Consortium. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[4]  J. Thrasher,et al.  Evaluation of ureterointestinal anastomosis: Wallace vs Bricker. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[5]  G. Steinberg,et al.  Open surgical repair of ureteral strictures and fistulas following radical cystectomy and urinary diversion. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[6]  H. Djaladat,et al.  Outcome of buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty for long and repeated stricture repair. , 2007, Urology.

[7]  S. Groshen,et al.  Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1,054 patients. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  B. Konety,et al.  Complications after radical cystectomy: analysis of population-based data. , 2006, Urology.

[9]  D. Wallace Ureteric diversion using a conduit: a simplified technique. , 1966, British journal of urology.

[10]  J. Hétet,et al.  [Complications of Bricker ileal conduit urinary diversion: analysis of a series of 246 patients]. , 2005, Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie.

[11]  W. Lowrance,et al.  Contemporary open radical cystectomy: analysis of perioperative outcomes. , 2008, The Journal of urology.

[12]  B. Bochner,et al.  Defining early morbidity of radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer using a standardized reporting methodology. , 2009, European urology.

[13]  J. Montie,et al.  Comparison of modified Taguchi and Bricker ureteral reimplantation techniques after radical cystectomy. , 2004, Urology.

[14]  A. Wein,et al.  Campbell-Walsh Urology , 2011 .