Cargando…

Intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics

INTRODUCTION: Ileal ureter is a suitable treatment option for patients with long ureteric strictures. Minimally invasive techniques have been shown to be as safe as open techniques but superior in terms of post–operative recovery. We report our experience using minimally invasive techniques for tota...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sim, Allen, Todenhöfer, Tilman, Mischinger, Johannes, Halalsheh, Omar, Boettge, Johannes, Rausch, Steffen, Bier, Simone, Aufderklamm, Stefan, Stenzl, Arnulf, Gakis, Georgios, Schwentner, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Polish Urological Association 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25667767
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2014.04.art21
_version_ 1782354921666904064
author Sim, Allen
Todenhöfer, Tilman
Mischinger, Johannes
Halalsheh, Omar
Boettge, Johannes
Rausch, Steffen
Bier, Simone
Aufderklamm, Stefan
Stenzl, Arnulf
Gakis, Georgios
Schwentner, Christian
author_facet Sim, Allen
Todenhöfer, Tilman
Mischinger, Johannes
Halalsheh, Omar
Boettge, Johannes
Rausch, Steffen
Bier, Simone
Aufderklamm, Stefan
Stenzl, Arnulf
Gakis, Georgios
Schwentner, Christian
author_sort Sim, Allen
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Ileal ureter is a suitable treatment option for patients with long ureteric strictures. Minimally invasive techniques have been shown to be as safe as open techniques but superior in terms of post–operative recovery. We report our experience using minimally invasive techniques for total intracorporeal ureteral replacement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A chart review revealed five patients who underwent intracorporeal ileal ureter using minimally invasive techniques in the preceding 5 years. 4 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery and 1 patient underwent robotic–assisted surgery. Patient's characteristics, perioperative data and functional outcomes as well as a detailed description of surgical technique are reported. In all 5 of these patients, the ileal ureter was performed completely intracorporeally. RESULTS: The median age of our patients is 61 (range 42–73). The median operative time was 250 minutes (range 150–320) and median blood loss was 100 ml (range 50–200). The median hospital stay was 8 days (range 6–10) and there were no major perioperative complications reported. At median follow up of 22 months (range 4–38), there were no recurrences of strictures or any other complications. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive intracorporeal ileal ureter. Numbers are still small but its application is likely to grow further.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4310887
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Polish Urological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43108872015-02-09 Intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics Sim, Allen Todenhöfer, Tilman Mischinger, Johannes Halalsheh, Omar Boettge, Johannes Rausch, Steffen Bier, Simone Aufderklamm, Stefan Stenzl, Arnulf Gakis, Georgios Schwentner, Christian Cent European J Urol Original Paper INTRODUCTION: Ileal ureter is a suitable treatment option for patients with long ureteric strictures. Minimally invasive techniques have been shown to be as safe as open techniques but superior in terms of post–operative recovery. We report our experience using minimally invasive techniques for total intracorporeal ureteral replacement. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A chart review revealed five patients who underwent intracorporeal ileal ureter using minimally invasive techniques in the preceding 5 years. 4 patients underwent conventional laparoscopic surgery and 1 patient underwent robotic–assisted surgery. Patient's characteristics, perioperative data and functional outcomes as well as a detailed description of surgical technique are reported. In all 5 of these patients, the ileal ureter was performed completely intracorporeally. RESULTS: The median age of our patients is 61 (range 42–73). The median operative time was 250 minutes (range 150–320) and median blood loss was 100 ml (range 50–200). The median hospital stay was 8 days (range 6–10) and there were no major perioperative complications reported. At median follow up of 22 months (range 4–38), there were no recurrences of strictures or any other complications. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive intracorporeal ileal ureter. Numbers are still small but its application is likely to grow further. Polish Urological Association 2014-12-05 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4310887/ /pubmed/25667767 http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2014.04.art21 Text en Copyright by Polish Urological Association http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Sim, Allen
Todenhöfer, Tilman
Mischinger, Johannes
Halalsheh, Omar
Boettge, Johannes
Rausch, Steffen
Bier, Simone
Aufderklamm, Stefan
Stenzl, Arnulf
Gakis, Georgios
Schwentner, Christian
Intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics
title Intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics
title_full Intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics
title_fullStr Intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics
title_full_unstemmed Intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics
title_short Intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics
title_sort intracorporeal ileal ureter replacement using laparoscopy and robotics
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25667767
http://dx.doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2014.04.art21
work_keys_str_mv AT simallen intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT todenhofertilman intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT mischingerjohannes intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT halalshehomar intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT boettgejohannes intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT rauschsteffen intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT biersimone intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT aufderklammstefan intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT stenzlarnulf intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT gakisgeorgios intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics
AT schwentnerchristian intracorporealilealureterreplacementusinglaparoscopyandrobotics