Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy combined to hysterectomy for intrinsic ureteral and deep pelvic endometriosis: Video presentation. Issue 2 (June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Albanesi, Gianluca; Baroni, Clara; Cecchi, Elena; Mogorovich, Andrea; Salerno, Maria Giovanna; Perutelli, Alessandra
• Is Part Of: Journal of endometriosis and pelvic pain disorders. Volume 12:Issue 2(2020)
• Page Start: 110
• Page End: 111
• Publication Date: 2020-06
• Subjects: Eradication of endometriosis -- robotic surgery -- robotic hysterectomy -- total laparoscopic hysterectomy -- ureteroneocystostomy -- ureteral endometriosis -- surgical treatment -- surgical technique -- ureteral resection -- surgical video; Endometriosis -- Periodicals; Pelvic pain -- Periodicals; 618.1
• DOI: 10.1177/2284026520905202
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2284-0265

Abstract

Introduction: We present a case of posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis with intrinsic ureteral involvement in a 43-year-old patient treated by robot-assisted laparoscopic technique. To our knowledge, this is the second case of robot-assisted ureteroneocystostomy with concomitant hysterectomy reported in the literature 1–5, yet the first one to be described with a video presentation. Case description: A 43-year-old woman with a past history of endometriosis treated laparoscopically was referred to our clinic for grade II–III left hydronephrosis. Pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a 3-cm paracervical endometriotic nodule causing ureteral compression, another 1.6-cm endometriotic nodule at the rectosigmoid junction, an adenomyotic nodule in the anterior uterine wall, and an endometrioma on the right ovary. Given that the patient had an absolute contraindication to hormonal therapy, we opted for robot-assisted laparoscopic complete eradication of endometriosis. The procedure consisted in total hysterectomy with concomitant removal of the rectovaginal nodule, right adnexectomy, left salpingectomy, and left ureteral resection with ureteroneocystostomy. After 8 days, a cystography was accomplished to confirm anastomosis integrity, and the bladder catheter was removed. The patient was discharged on day 8 after a regular postoperative period. One year after the surgery, the patient refers wellbeing. Conclusion: The robotic approach in such a complex procedure as surgical treatment of ureteral and deep infiltrating endometriosis is feasible and safe with acceptable postoperative outcome. Further investigations with larger comparative cohorts that include cost analysis are needed to fully assess the benefits achieved by robotic assistance in patients with ureteral and deep infiltrating endometriosis.