Robotic-assisted Lingual Mucosal Graft Ureteroplasty for the Repair of Complex Ureteral Strictures: Technique Description and the Medium-term Outcome

Kunlin Yang; Shubo Fan; Jie Wang; Lu Yin; Zhihua Li; Shengwei Xiong; Guanpeng Han; Chang Meng; Peng Zhang; Xuesong Li; Liqun Zhou

doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.007

Robotic-assisted Lingual Mucosal Graft Ureteroplasty for the Repair of Complex Ureteral Strictures: Technique Description and the Medium-term Outcome

Eur Urol. 2022 May;81(5):533-540. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.007. Epub 2022 Jan 31.

Authors

Kunlin Yang¹, Shubo Fan¹, Jie Wang¹, Lu Yin¹, Zhihua Li¹, Shengwei Xiong¹, Guanpeng Han¹, Chang Meng¹, Peng Zhang², Xuesong Li³, Liqun Zhou⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China.
² Department of Urology, Emergency General Hospital, Beijing, China.
³ Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China. Electronic address: pineneedle@sina.com.
⁴ Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China; Institute of Urology, Peking University, Beijing, China; National Urological Cancer Center, Beijing, China. Electronic address: zhoulqmail@sina.com.

PMID: 35101303
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.007

Abstract

Background: Robot-assisted autologous graft ureteroplasty provides another treatment option for complex ureteral strictures, circumventing ileal ureter or renal autotransplantation.

Objective: To report the medium-term outcome of robotic ureteroplasty with a lingual mucosal graft (RU-LMG) for managing complex ureteral strictures.

Design, setting, and participants: Between June 2019 and September 2020, 12 patients underwent RU-LMG. The perioperative variables were prospectively collected, and the outcomes were assessed.

Surgical procedure: After ureteral stricture dissection, the narrow segment was cut longitudinally, and a lingual mucosal graft (LMG) of the required length was harvested, followed by double-J stent placement and LMG ventral onlay anastomosis. If the diseased ureter required transection, posteriorly augmented ureteral anastomosis could be performed before LMG harvest. Finally, the anastomotic area was wrapped by the omental flap.

Measurements: A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. The criteria for complete success included the absence of both clinical symptoms and obstruction on radiography.

Results and limitations: Seven patients (58%) had a history of failed ureteral reconstruction. The mean (range) stricture length was 4.7 (3-6.5) cm, LMG length was 4.4 (3-7) cm, LMG width was 1.5 (1-2) cm, operative duration was 197.1 (130-346) min, estimated blood loss was 49.2 (10-200) ml, and the duration of postoperative hospitalization was 6 (4-14) d. No open conversions and intraoperative complications occurred. The median follow-up time was 15 mo (range: 13-27 mo). The overall success rate was 92% (11/12).

Conclusions: These medium-term follow-up results demonstrate that RU-LMG is a safe and feasible technique for repairing ureteral strictures.

Patient summary: Our study proves that robotic ureteroplasty with a lingual mucosal graft is a safe and feasible technique for ureteral reconstruction that can serve as another choice for managing long, complex ureteral strictures.

Keywords: Lingual mucosa; Reconstructive surgery; Robotic ureteroplasty; Ureteral stricture.

MeSH terms

Constriction, Pathologic / surgery
Female
Humans
Male
Mouth Mucosa / transplantation
Retrospective Studies
Robotic Surgical Procedures* / adverse effects
Treatment Outcome
Ureter* / surgery
Ureteral Obstruction* / etiology
Ureteral Obstruction* / surgery