Ureterointestinal anastomosis in urinary diversion – current opinion
Authors:
J. Doležel
Authors place of work:
Oddělení urologické onkologie, Klinika operační onkologie LF Masarykovy univerzity a Masarykova onkologického ústavu, Brno
přednosta: doc. MUDr. R. Šefr, Ph. D.
Published in the journal:
Rozhl. Chir., 2017, roč. 96, č. 4, s. 146-150.
Category:
Review
Summary
Uretero-intestinal anastomosis (UIA) is one of the most critical points for the occurrence of severe complications of intestinal urinary diversion. Perfection of the current techniques and development of new UIA methods are motivated by the effort to reduce both early and late post-surgical complications. The necessity of using antireflux UIA, especially with an orthotopic neobladder, is controversial: according to some authors, antireflux UIA of any type generally increases, in comparison with reflux UIA, the risk of obstruction that endangers renal function more than the urine reflux itself. ICUD-EAU International Consultation on Bladder Cancer 2012 does not recommend applying antireflux UIA in orthotopic bladder substitutions. In ileal conduit diversions, most surgeons use only refluxing UIA. Studer and Turner recommend antireflux UIA only in cases where urine diversion can generate great intraluminal pressure and/or where there is a high risk of permanent bacterial colonization. The flap-and-trough technique (FT) of nonrefluxing UIA represents another flap-valve method for implanting normal as well as dilated ureters into various types of urinary diversion, with a low risk of stenotic complications.
Conclusions:
A simple refluxing end-to-side UIA to a low-pressure orthotopic reservoir is a procedure of choice with low complication rates. On the other hand, the need for reflux prevention with a conduit, continent cutaneous diversion or anal diversion is well-founded.
Key words:
ureterointestinal anastomosis
Zdroje
1. Månsson W. Comment. In Hohenfellner R, Novick A, Fichtner J, editors. Innovations in Urologic Surgery. 2nd ed. Oxford: Isis Medical Media. 1997:622−3.
2. Abol-Enein H, Ghoneim MA. Functional results of orthotopic ileal neobladder with serous-lined extramural ureteral reimplantation: Experience with 450 patients. J Urol 2001;165:1427−32.
3. Kristjánsson A, Månsson W. Refluxing or nonrefluxing ureteric anastomosis. BJU Int 1999;84:905−10.
4. Hohenfellner R, Black P, Leissner J, et al. Refluxing ureterointestinal anastomosis for continent cutaneous urinary diversion. J Urol 2002;168:1013−7.
5. Ghoneim MA. Editorial comment. In Hohenfellner R, Black P, Leissner J, et al. Refluxing ureterointestinal anastomosis for continent cutaneous urinary diversion. J Urol 2002;168:1013−7.
6. Studer UE, Turner WH. Is reflux prevention important in urinary diversion? In Webster GD, Goldwasser B, editors. Urinary diversion: Scientific foundations and clinical practice. Oxford, Isis Medical Media 1995:282−93.
7. Waidelich R, Rink F, Kriegmair M, et al. A study of reflux in patients with an ileal orthotopic bladder. Br J Urol 1998;81:241–6.
8. Abol-Enein H, Ghoneim MA. A novel uretero-ileal reimplantation technique: The serous lined extramural tunnel. A preliminary report. J Urol 1994;151:1193−7.
9. Kristjánsson A, Abol-Enein H, Alm P, et al. Long-term renal morphology and function following enterocystoplasty (refluxing or antireflux anast.): an experimental study. Br J Urol 1996;78:840−6.
10. Richie JP, Skinner DG. Urinary diversion: the physiological rationale for non-refluxing colonic conduits. Br J Urol 1975;47:269−75.
11. Duggan FJ, Sanford EJ, Rohner TJ. The disadvantages of reflux in uretero-ileal cutaneous anastomoses for supravesical urinary diversion. Urol Res 1974;2:85−90.
12. Kristjánsson A, Wallin L, Månsson W. Renal function up to 16 years after conduit (refluxing or anti-reflux anastomosis) or continent urinary diversion. 1. glomerular filtration rate and patency of uretero-intestinal anastomosis. Br J Urol 1995;76:539−45.
13. Kristjánsson A, Bajc M, Willin L, et al. Renal function up to 16 years after conduit (refluxing or antireflux anast.) or continent urin. diversion. 2. Renal scaring and location of bacteriuria. Br J Urol 1995;76:546−50.
14. Stein JP, Lieskovsky G, Ginsberg DA, et al. The T pouch: an orthotopic ileal neobladder incorporating a serosal lined ileal antireflux technique. J Urol 1998;159:1836−42.
15. Doležel J. Uretero-ileal anastomosis: a preliminary report of novel modification - the flap-and-trough technique. BJU Int 2001;88(cr3):299.
16. Doležel J, Sutorý M, Navrátil P. Antireflux uretero-intestinal anastomosis – Flap-and-Trough technique − applicable to ileum: Early clinical experience. Eur Urol 2004;46:598−603.
17. Doležel J, Čapák I, Valík D, et al. The effect of uretero-intestinal anastomosis on renal function and morbidity in intestinal urinary diversion. Scand J Urol 2013;47:225−9.
18. Hautmann ER, Abol-Enein H, Davidsson T, et al. ICUD-EAU International Consultation on Bladder Cancer 2012: Urinary diversion. Eur Urol 2013;63:67−80.
19. Nesbit RM. Uretero-sigmoid anastomosis by direct elliptical anastomosis. J Urol 1949;61:728−34.
20. Wallace DM. Ureteric diversion using a conduit: a simplified technique. Br J Urol 1966:38:522−7.
21. Studer UE, Ackermnn D, Casanova GA. Three years’ experience with an ileal low pressure bladder substitute. Br J Urol 1989;63:43−52.
22. Hautmann RE, de Petriconi RC, Volkmer BG. 25 years of experience with 1,000 neobladders: long-term complications. J Urol. 2011;85:2207–12.
23. Elbendary M, El Gamal OM, Tawfik AM, et al. Simple modification in Hautmann neobladder to carry out left ureteroileal anastmosis without mobilization of the ureter. Int J Urol 2014;21:413−5.
24. Waidelich R, Rink F, Kriegmair M, et al. A study of reflux in patients with an ileal orthotopic bladder. Br J Urol 1998;81:241–6.
25. Studer UE, Turner WH. The ileal orthotopic bladder. Urology 1995;45:185−9.
26. Studer UE, Burkhard FC, Schumacher M, et al. Twenty years experience with an ileal orthotopic low pressure bladder substitute – lessons to be learned. J Urol 2006;176:161–6.
27. Jin XD, Roethlisberger S, Burkhard FC, et al. Long-term renal function after urinary diversion by ileal conduit or orthotopic ileal bladder substitution. Eur Urol 2012;61:491–7.
28. Mattei A, Birkhaeuser FD, Baermann C, et al. To stent or not to stent perioperatively the ureteroileal anastomosis of ileal orthotopic bladder substitutes and ileal conduits? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Urol 2008;179:582–6.
29. Kessler TM, Burkhard FC, Perimenis P, et al. Attempted nerve sparing surgery and age have a significant effect on urinary continence and erectile function after radical cystoprostatectomy and ileal orthotopic bladder substitution. J Urol 2004;172:1323–7.
30. Shaaban AA, Abdel-Latif M, Mosbah A, et al. A randomized study comparing an antireflux system with a direct ureteric anastomosis in patients with orthotopic ileal neobladders. BJU Int 2006;97:1057–62.
31. Gakis G, Stenzl A. Ileal neobladder and its variants. Eur Urol 2010;745−53.
32. Neal DE, Urodynamic investigation of the ileal conduit: upper tract dilatation and the effects of revision of the conduit. J. Urol 1989;142:97−100.
33. Le Duc A, Camey M, Teillac P. An original antireflux uretero-ileal implantation technique: long-term follow-up. J Urol 1987;137:1156−8.
34. Nagele U, Sievert KD, Merseburger AS, et al. A. Urinary diversion following cystectomy. EAU Update Series 2005:129−37.
35. Shaaban AA, Gaballah MA, El-Diasty TA, et al. Urethral controlled bladder substitution: a comparison between the intussusc. nipple valve and the technique of Le Duc as antireflux procedures. J Urol 1992;148:1156−61.
36. Heitz-Boyer M, Hovelacque A. Creation d´une nouvelle vessie et d´un nouvel uretre. J d´Urol Med Chir 1912;18:237−58.
37. Sagalowsky AI Further experience with split-cuff nipple ureteral reimplantation in urinary diversion. J Urol 1998;159:1843−4.
38. Stenzl A, Sherif H, Kuczyk M. Radical cystectomy with orthotopic neobladder for invasive bladder cancer: A critical analysis of long term oncological, functional and quality of life results. Int Brazil J Urol 2010;36:537−47.
39. Doležel J, Čapák I, Staník, et al. Vlastní modifikace uretero-intestinální resp. uretero-neocystoanastomózy v onkochirurgii a rekonstrukční urologii. In: Abrahamová J, editor. Vybrané otázky onkologie XIV. Praha, Galén 2010:32−3.
Štítky
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Perspectives in Surgery
2017 Číslo 4
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole in perioperative treatment in children under 14 years – results of a questionnaire survey from practice
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Liver hemangiomas – when is invasive treatment indicated?
- Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas
- Polymastia in unusual localization during pregnancy
- Ureterointestinal anastomosis in urinary diversion – current opinion