Evaluation and outcome of the distal ureteral stump after nephro-ureterectomy in children. A comparison between laparoscopy and retroperitoneoscopy. Issue 2 (April 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Escolino, Maria; Farina, Alessandra; Turrà, Francesco; Cerulo, Mariapina; Esposito, Rosanna; Savanelli, Antonio; Settimi, Alessandro; Esposito, Ciro
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 12:Issue 2(2016)
• Page Start: 119.e1
• Page End: 119.e8
• Publication Date: 2016-04
• Subjects: Nephro-ureterectomy -- Laparoscopy -- Retroperitoneoscopy -- Ureteral stump -- Children; Pediatric urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals; Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Child; Infant; Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques; Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie; Urologie; Pediatric urology; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.926
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.10.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-5131

Abstract

Summary: Background: In children with a poorly functioning kidney due to vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) or ureteropelvic junction obstruction, management is by nephrectomy with total or proximal ureterectomy. The complete removal of all the ureter minimizes the risk of future morbidity associated with the distal ureteral stump (DUS), including febrile urinary tract infections (UTIs), lower quadrant pain and hematuria, the so-called ureteral stump syndrome. Objective: To assess the outcome of the DUS after nephroureterectomy, we analyzed our recent experience of nephrectomy performed via retroperitoneoscopy and via laparoscopy. Methods: The records of 21 consecutive patients (median age 3.5 years, range 1–10 years) who underwent nephroureterectomy via laparoscopy or via retroperitoneoscopy were retrospectively reviewed for symptoms caused by DUS and their management. Nephrectomy was undertaken for a poorly functioning dysplastic (4), scarred from VUR (10) or hydronephrotic (7) kidney. In the laparoscopic group (11 pts), 6 cases required nephrectomy for reflux while 5 patients were operated for hydronephrotic or dysplastic non-functioning kidney. In the retroperitoneoscopic group (10 pts), nephrectomy was performed for reflux in 4 cases versus 6 patients affected by hydronephrotic or dysplastic non-functioning kidney. The patients were evaluated using ultrasound (US) to check DUS length and clinically to evaluate symptoms due to a symptomatic DUS. Results: The average length of surgery was 50 min for laparoscopy and 80 min for retroperitoneoscopy. The average of follow-up was 5 years. The length of DUS after laparoscopic nephrectomy was shorter (range 3–7 mm, statistically significant) than the DUS after retroperitoneoscopy (range 2–5 cm) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic patients were all asymptomatic. Two patients, after retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy, presented with recurrent UTIs; a voiding cystography revealed a VUR on the residual DUS and a redo surgery was performed in both the patients to remove the DUS (Figure). Discussion: Several authors have stated that, in case of subtotal ureterectomy, the incidence of symptomatic DUS after nephrectomy for high-grade vesicoureteric reflux is low. However, in our series, the incidence of symptomatic DUS after nephroureterectomy was not insignificant (2/21, 9.5%). Symptoms related to a refluxing DUS occurred only in patients undergoing retroperitoneoscopic nephroureterectomy, where the DUS was longer than the DUS detected in laparoscopic patients. Conclusions: Considering that laparoscopy permits removal of all the ureter near the bladder dome, in children with non-functioning kidney due to VUR, it is advisable to always perform a laparoscopic rather than a retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy to prevent problems related to a symptomatic DUS. Figure A 5-cm-long distal ureteral stump was removed via a flank incision.