Role of buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty in the surgical management of pyeloplasty failure
Matthew Leea*(),Elizabeth Nagodaa,David Straussa,Matthew Loechera,Michael Stifelmanb,Lee Zhaoc
aDepartment of Urology, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA bDepartment of Urology, Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, NJ, USA cDepartment of Urology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York University Langone Health System, New York, NY, USA
Objective: Secondary pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstructions may be a safe and feasible surgical option for patients. This study aimed to demonstrate outcomes of utilizing a non-transecting buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty for management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after prior failed pyeloplasty.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review of our Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery database for all consecutive patients who underwent buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty between April 2012 and June 2022 for management of recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstructions after prior failed pyeloplasty. The primary outcome included surgical success which was defined as the absence of flank pain and no obstruction on imaging.
Results: Overall, ten patients were included in our analysis. The median stricture length was 2.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.8-4.0) cm. The median operative time was 230.5 (IQR 199.5-287.0) min and median estimated blood loss was 50.0 (IQR 28.8-102.5) mL. At a median follow-up of 10.3 (IQR 6.2-14.8) months, 80% of patients were surgically successful and there were no major (Clavien-Dindo Grade>2) complications.
Conclusion: Buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty is a valuable non-transecting surgical option for patients with recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstructions who failed prior pyeloplasty and has comparable outcomes to the literature regarding standard transecting techniques.
. [J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 373-376.
Matthew Lee, Elizabeth Nagoda, David Strauss, Matthew Loecher, Michael Stifelman, Lee Zhao. Role of buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty in the surgical management of pyeloplasty failure. Asian Journal of Urology, 2024, 11(3): 373-376.
Sundaram C, Hopf H, Bahler C. Long-term outcomes of robotassisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 2016; 90:106-11.
[2]
Etafy M, Pick D, Said S, Hsueh T, Kerbl D, Mucksavage P, et al. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience. J Urol 2011; 185:2196-200.
[3]
Gupta N, Nayyar R, Hemal A, Mukherjee S, Kumar R, Dogra P. Outcome analysis of robotic pyeloplasty: a large single-centre experience. BJUI 2010; 105:980-3.
[4]
Lee M, Lee Z, Strauss D, Jun MS, Koster H, Asghar A, et al. Multi-institutional experience comparing outcomes of adult patients undergoing secondary versus primary robotic pyeloplasty. Urology 2020; 145:275-80.
[5]
Zhao LC, Weinberg AC, Lee Z, Ferretti MJ, Koo HP, Metro MJ, et al. Robotic ureteral reconstruction using buccal mucosa grafts: a multi-institutional experience. Eur Urol 2018; 73:419-26.
[6]
Lee Z, Lee M, Koster H, Lee R, Cheng N, Jun M, et al. A multiinstitutional experience with robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft: an updated analysis of intermediateterm outcomes. Urology 2021; 147:306-10.
[7]
Lee Z, Moore B, Giusto L, Eun D. Use of indocyanine green during robot-assisted ureteral reconstructions. Eur Urol 2015; 67:291-8.
[8]
Atug F, Burgess SV, Castle E, Thomas J. Role of robotics in the management of secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60:9-11.
[9]
Sundaram CP, Grubb R, Rehman J, Nan Y, Chen C, Landman J, et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Urol 2003; 169:2037-40.
[10]
Hammady A, Elbadry MS, Rashed E, Moussa A, Gamal W, Dawood W, et al. Laparoscopic repyeloplasty after failed open repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a casematched multi-institutional study. Scand J Urol 2017; 51:402-6.
