Satyanarayan A, Preuss D, Davis TD, Peters CA. Robotic excision and ureteroureterostomy of blind-ending ureteral 'Duplication'.
J Pediatr Urol 2019;
15:91-92. [PMID:
30583906 DOI:
10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.11.018]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2018] [Accepted: 11/26/2018] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Duplicated ureteral anatomy can be a reconstructive challenge. Blind-ending ureteral duplication has been reported with recommendations for surgical excision.
OBJECTIVE
This video reviews the importance of exposure of anatomic landmarks in surgical excision of a blind-ending ureteral duplication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This is a retrospective case report of a patient who presented with a blind-ending ureteral duplication.
DISCUSSION
A 13-year-old female presented with a right-sided abdominal mass. Abdominal and pelvic imaging revealed a tubular structure adjacent to and below the right kidney, possibly connecting to the right lower pole. While initially observed, the patient re-presented with urosepsis. A retrograde pyelogram showed no connection between the right ureter and this structure. The patient underwent robotic-assisted excision of this structure. Intra-operatively, it was connected to the right lower pole calyces. A ureteroureterostomy to the orthotopic ureter was performed. Although the structure was adjacent to the bladder dome, there was no communication distally. Postoperatively, the patient did well; follow-up imaging showed a non-dilated lower pole. The pathology of this structure was benign urothelium.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgical management of aberrant ureteral duplications should focus on identifying known landmarks and should be considered to prevent symptomatic infections and renal scarring.
Collapse