Does prophylactic ureteric stenting at the time of colorectal surgery reduce the risk of ureteric injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Prophylactic ureteral stent in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

Accidental ureteric injury during colorectal surgery is a rare but dreadful event. It is associated with a higher risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) and acute kidney injury (AKI). Prophylactic placement of double J stents could improve ureteral identification and decrease the chance of accidental ureteral injury.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, Central Register of Clinical Trials, and Web of Science for studies published until March 2024. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with a random-effects model. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, with p-values inferior to 0.10 and I2 > 25% considered significant. Statistical analysis was conducted in RStudio version 4.4.1.

RESULTS

Eleven observational studies were included, comprising 71,784 patients. Among them, 11,723 (16.4%) were submitted to a prophylactic ureteral stent while 59,961 (83.6%) were not. There was no significant difference in ureteral injury between the groups (0.66% vs 0.8%; OR 1.45; 95% CI 0.43-4.87; p = 0.552; I2 = 56%). Prophylactic stent placement was associated with an increase in AKI (1.7% vs. 0.56%; OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.24-1.91; p < 0.001; I2 = 44%), operative time (MD 24.8 min; 95% CI 4.9-44.8; p = 0.01; I2 = 91%), and a decrease in mortality (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.05-0.23; p < 0.001; I2 = 42%). No differences were observed in UTI, hematuria, length of hospital stays, and reoperation.

CONCLUSION

In colorectal surgery, prophylactic ureteral stents were associated with increased AKI and operative time. No significant difference was observed in ureteral injury, UTI, hematuria, length of hospital stays, and reoperation.

Open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic pouch excision: unveiling the best approach for optimal outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Despite advantages for patients with ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and familial adenomatous polyposis, restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis carries a risk of pouch failure, necessitating pouch excision. The traditional open approach is associated with potential complications. Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are emerging, but comparative outcome data are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive adult patients undergoing robotic, laparoscopic, and open ileal pouch excision at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, between January 2015 and December 2023. We analyzed data on patient characteristics, perioperative variables, and postoperative outcomes, focusing on short-term complications. Statistical analysis included appropriate tests.

RESULTS

The study included 123 patients: 23 underwent robotic-assisted pouch excision, 12 laparoscopic, and 82 open. The robotic approach had the longest median operative time (334 ± 170 min, p = 0.03). However, it demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss than open (150 ± 200 ml vs. 350 ± 300 ml, p = 0.002) and laparoscopic surgery (250 ± 250 ml, p = 0.005). Robotic and laparoscopic groups required fewer preoperative ureteral stents than the open group (p = 0.001). Additionally, the robotic approach utilized fewer pelvic drainages (p < 0.0001) and had a lower rate of lysis of adhesions > 60 min compared to open surgery (p = 0.003). Robotic procedures had significantly lower 30-day postoperative complications than the open approach (30.4% vs. 65.9%, p = 0.002) while also demonstrating fewer 30-day reoperations than the laparoscopic group (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted pouch excision offered significant benefits, including decreased EBL, reduced need for preoperative ureteral stents, and significantly fewer 30-day postoperative complications compared to open surgery.

Iatrogenic urinary injuries in colorectal surgery: outcomes and risk factors from a nationwide cohort

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic urinary injury (IUI) can lead to significant complications after colorectal surgery, especially when diagnosis is delayed. This study analyzes risk factors associated with IUI and delayed IUI among patients undergoing colorectal procedures.

METHODS

Adults undergoing colorectal surgery between 2012 and 2021 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP®) database. Multivariable regression analysis was used to determine risk factors and outcomes associated with IUI and delayed IUI.

RESULTS

Among 566,036 patients, 5836 patients (1.0%) had IUI after colorectal surgery, of whom 236 (4.0%) had delayed IUI. Multiple preoperative risk factors for IUI and delayed IUI were identified, with disseminated cancer [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.5; p < 0.001] and diverticular disease [aOR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2; p = 0.009] correlated with IUI and increased body mass index [aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1; p = 0.003] and ascites [aOR 5.6, 95% CI 2.1-15.4; p = 0.001] associated with delayed IUI. Laparoscopic approach was associated with decreased risk of IUI [aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.4-0.5; p < 0.001] and increased risk of delayed IUI [aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4-2.5; p < 0.001]. Both IUI and delayed IUI were associated with significant postoperative morbidity, with severe multiorgan complications seen in delayed IUI.

CONCLUSIONS

While IUI occurs infrequently in colorectal surgery, unrecognized injuries can complicate repair and cause other negative postoperative outcomes. Patients with complex intra-abdominal pathology are at increased risk of IUI, and patients with large body habitus undergoing laparoscopic procedures are at increased risk of delayed IUI.

Utility and challenges of ureteral visualization using a fluorescent ureteral catheter in high risk surgeries for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Ureteral injury occurs in 0.3-1.5% of colorectal cancer surgeries. Devices to visualize the ureteral course and avoid ureteral injury are required for minimally invasive surgery (MIS). The NIRC™ fluorescent ureteral catheter (FUC) is a versatile ureteral visualization device currently available in Japan that can be used in combination with a variety of laparoscopic and robotic systems. In this study, we examined the outcomes of high-risk patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery with FUC insertion.

METHODS

One hundred forty-one patients who underwent MIS for colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer recurrence at our institute between January 2021 and May 2024 underwent preoperative FUC insertion because of the high risk of ureteral injury and surgical difficulty. For these patients, patient background data and short-term outcomes were examined. The results are expressed as the median and interquartile range.

RESULTS

Age, 70 [60-78]; M:F(n), 84:57; BMI, 22.1 [19.7-24.7]; T4 (TNM classification), 52 cases (36.9%); preoperative intestinal obstruction, 45 cases (31.9%); abscess formation, 30 cases (21%); surgical history, 70 cases (50%); recurrent cancer, 14 cases (9.9%); preoperative chemo-radiotherapy, 28 cases (19.9%); time required for FUC insertion, 12 [9-19] minutes; operation time, 412 [309-552] minutes; blood loss, 10 [5-30] ml; open conversion, 0 cases; postoperative hospitalization, 12 [9-17.5]; circumferential resection margins < 1 mm (rectal surgery), 4/87 cases (4.6%); comorbidities, 0 ureteral injury, 1 urethral injury during FUC insertion (0.7%) and 16 CD Grade 3 or higher cases (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

FUC may improve the safety of MIS and reduce blood loss in addition to preventing ureteral injury and is expected to have oncological advantages for ensuring the margin of the tumor without fear of ureteral injury. However, the time required for and complications associated with FUC are challenging. New methods for less invasive and easier ureteral visualization may be needed.

Iatrogenic ureteral injury diagnosed after colon cancer surgery: A case report of a rare and challenging complication

INTRODUCTION

Iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI) is an unfortunate and rare complication during colorectal surgery. While IUI remains a rare event, short and long-term complications are life-threatening ranging from intraperitoneal urinoma to septic shock and a serious risk of permanent renal failure.

CASE PRESENTATION

An 88-year-old patient was admitted with symptoms of large bowel obstruction and underwent a laparotomy with a discharge colostomy. A week later, a second laparotomy was required for a non-functional retracted stoma, revealing a perforation in a sigmoid tumor. The patient then had an oncological sigmoidectomy with Hartman's colostomy. Postoperative findings indicated a left ureteral injury. Three weeks later, a ureterostomy was performed. Unfortunately, the patient succumbed to heart failure one week after the ureterostomy.

DISCUSSION

Low anterior and abdominoperineal resection of the rectum, along with sigmoid resection are the most frequent causes of ureteral injury in digestive surgery. The primary objective of management is to establish a continuous flow of urine to avert potential complications. Preventing IUI in colorectal surgery is of paramount importance. This process initiates in the preoperative phase with a meticulous assessment of ureteral and colic anatomy through comprehensive review of preoperative imaging.

CONCLUSION

IUI remains a seldom-seen, and yet a very serious complication in colorectal surgery. It is imperative to prioritize both preoperative and intraoperative measures to prevent IUI, ensuring optimal outcomes. When the diagnosis of a IUI is established, a treatment strategy should be meticulously devised and executed by a skilled and experienced surgeon.

Acute kidney injury after colorectal surgery with prophylactic ureteral stents

BACKGROUND

After colorectal surgery, acute kidney injury (AKI) results from a complex interplay of multiple independent causes and preventive measures that occur during the hospitalization. Prophylactic stenting for ureter identification has been identified as a potential cause, but the evidence is conflicting, possibly because of differing baseline characteristics and procedure-related approaches.

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective cohort study assesses the role of stents in the etiology of AKI after determining the independent predictors of AKI.

METHODS

From a population of 1224 consecutive colorectal patients (from 8/1/2016 through 12/31/2021), 382 (31.2%) received ureteral stents, and propensity score matching was used to create stented and control groups. Emergent cases and patients with sepsis were excluded from the analysis. Previously identified independent predictors of AKI, minimally invasive procedures, and a history of diabetes mellitus were used as criteria to create two balanced groups.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic characteristics and procedure-related factors baseline factors were similar between the groups. There was no difference in the rate of AKI between stented patients and controls (P = 0.82), nor was there any difference in postoperative complications, such as chronic renal insufficiency (CRI, P = 0.49), average postoperative creatinine (P = 0.67), urinary tract infections (UTI, P = 0.82), any postoperative infection (P = 0.48), in-hospital complications (P = 1.00), length of stay (LOS, P = 0.15), and 30-day readmissions (P = 0.79).

CONCLUSIONS

In a population of patients where stenting was frequently employed, ureter stents placed for identification did not appear to cause AKI or AKI-related complications.

The role of ureteric indocyanine green fluorescence in colorectal surgery: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Ureteric injury (UI) is an infrequent but serious complication of colorectal surgery. Prophylactic ureteric stenting is employed to avoid UI, yet its efficacy remains debated. Intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence imaging (ICG-FI) has been used to facilitate ureter detection. This study aimed to investigate the role of ICG-FI in identification of ureters during colorectal surgery and its impact on the incidence of UI.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study involving 556 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal surgery between 2018 and 2023 assessed the utility of routine prophylactic ureteric stenting with adjunctive ICG-FI. Patients with ICG-FI were compared to those without ICG-FI. Demographic data, operative details, and postoperative morbidity were analyzed. Statistical analysis included univariable regression.

RESULTS

Ureteric ICG-FI was used in 312 (56.1%) patients, whereas 43.9% were controls. Both groups were comparable in terms of demographics except for a higher prevalence of prior abdominal surgeries in the ICG-FI group. Although intraoperative visualization was significantly higher in the ICG-FI group (95.3% vs 89.1%; p = 0.011), the incidence of UI was similar between groups (0.3% vs 0.8%; p = 0.585). Postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Median stent insertion time was longer in the ICG-FI group (32 vs 25 min; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Ureteric ICG-FI improved intraoperative visualization of the ureters but was not associated with a reduced UI rate. Median stent insertion time increased with use of ureteric ICG-FI, but total operative time did not. Despite its limitations, this study is the largest of its kind suggesting that ureteric ICG-FI may be a valuable adjunct to facilitate  ureteric visualization during colorectal surgery.

Can preoperative ureteral stent placement help in the intraoperative identification of iatrogenic ureteral injury?

BACKGROUND

The benefits of prophylactic ureteral stent placement during colorectal surgery remain controversial. This study aimed to determine the incidence of ureteral injury in colorectal operations, assess the complications associated with stent usage, and determine whether their use leads to earlier identification and treatment of injury.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of patients undergoing colorectal abdominal operations between 2015 and 2021. Variables were examined for possible association with ureteral stent placement. The primary study endpoint was ureteral injury identified within 30 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Of 6481 patients who underwent colorectal surgery, 970 (15%) underwent preoperative ureteral stent placement. The use of stents was significantly associated with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, wound classification, and longer duration of surgery. A ureteral injury was identified in 28 patients (0.4%). Of these patients, 13 had no stent, and 15 had preoperative stents placed. After propensity matching, stent use was associated with an increased risk of hematuria and urinary tract infection. Ureteral injury was identified intraoperatively in 14 of 28 patients (50.0%) and was not associated with ureteral stent use (P = .45).

CONCLUSION

Iatrogenic ureteral injury was uncommon, whereas preoperative stent placement was relatively frequent. Earlier recognition of iatrogenic ureteral injury is not an expected advantage of preoperative ureteral stent placement.

Preventing iatrogenic ureteral injury in colorectal surgery: a comprehensive and systematic review of the last 2 decades of literature and future perspectives

Iatrogenic ureteral injury (IUI) during colorectal surgery is a rare complication but related to a serious burden of morbidity. This comprehensive and systematic review aims to provide a critical overview of the most recent literature about IUI prevention techniques in colorectal surgery. We performed a comprehensive and systematic review of studies published from 2000 to 2022 and assessed the use of techniques for ureteral injury prevention and intraoperative localization. 26 publications were included, divided into stent-based (prophylactic/lighted ureteral stent and near-infrared fluorescent ureteral catheter [PUS/LUS/NIRFUC]) and fluorescent dye (FD) groups. Costs, the percentage and number of IUIs detected, reported limitations, complication rates and other outcome points were compared. The IUI incidence rate ranged from 0 to 1.9% (mean 0.5%) and 0 to 1.2% (mean 0.3%) in the PUS/LUS/NIRFUC and FD groups, respectively. The acute kidney injury (AKI) and urinary tact infection (UTI) incidence rate ranged from 0.4 to 32.6% and 0 to 17.3%, respectively, in the PUS/LUS/NIRFUC group and 0-15% and 0-6.3%, respectively, in the FD group. Many other complications were also compared and descriptively analyzed (length-of-stay, mortality, etc.). These techniques appear to be feasible and safe in select patients with a high risk of IUI, but the delineation of reliable guidelines for preventing IUI will require more randomized controlled trials.

Risk stratification of acute kidney injury (AKI) following ureteral stent insertion for colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Ureteral stents have long been utilized during colorectal resections to assist in the identification of ureters intraoperatively and mitigate risk of ureteral injury. As these procedures have shifted toward robot-assisted laparoscopic methods, lighted stents have increasingly been used. The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) following bilateral ureteral stent placement has been reported to be as high as 41.9%. We sought to identify our single-institution risk and determine the extent to which age, sex, and stent type affected incidence of AKI.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed at a single community hospital of all open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic colorectal surgeries from October 2012 to April 2022. If requested, ureteral stents were placed bilaterally by a urologist and later removed by the surgeon. Non-lighted stents used were 5 Fr whistle-tip (BARD); lighted stents were 6 Fr with a fiberoptic core (STRYKER). Kidney failure was described as a rise of creatinine to ≥ 1.5 times the preoperative value, per KDIGO guidelines.

RESULTS

633 consecutive colorectal surgeries were evaluated, with no stents placed in 237 cases, non-lighted stents placed in 137 cases, and lighted stents placed in 259 cases. No ureteral injuries were observed. Overall incidence of AKI for non-stented surgeries was 0.8% vs 5.8% for non-lighted stents and 5.8% for lighted stents. Patient age was the most significant factor in AKI incidence: for patients under 60, there was no statistical difference in AKI incidence for stented vs non-stented procedures (2.2% vs 1.1%). For patients over 60, the risk of AKI was 10.5% for stented vs 0.7% for non-stented. Female patients had statistically significant risk differences, with AKI incidence of 7.1% stented vs 0.0% non-stented. AKI completely resolved in all cases, regardless of cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients under age 60, the use of stents was not associated with an increased risk of AKI. For women and those over 60, stents pose a higher risk of transient AKI. Overall incidence of AKI in our larger and single-institution community hospital population was significantly lower than reported in other studies. No statistical difference was observed, overall, in AKI incidence between lighted and non-lighted stents.

Ureteral Stents Do Not Increase the Risk for Acute Kidney Injury After Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Ureteral stents are thought to prevent or help identify ureteral injuries. Studies suggesting that ureteral stents increase the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury show inconsistent conclusions. The large ureteral stenting volume at our institution provided a unique opportunity for granular analysis not previously reported.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether prophylactic ureteral stenting at colorectal surgery increases acute kidney injury.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of colorectal operations with prophylactic ureteral stents was compared to operations without stents. Adjusted analysis was performed with inverse probability treatment weighting.

SETTINGS

Single institution enhanced recovery colorectal surgery service.

PATIENTS

Prospective institutional database between July 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was acute kidney injury, defined as increase in creatinine ≥0. 3 mg/dL (definition 1) and 1.5-fold increase in creatinine (definition 2) within 48 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

There were 410 patients in the study population: 310 patients in the stent group and 100 in the no-stent group. There were 8 operative ureteral injuries: 4 (1.29%) in the stent group and 4 (4.0%) in the no-stent group ( p = 0.103). Unadjusted analysis revealed no significant difference in acute kidney injury between groups. After adjustment, there was still no significant difference in acute kidney injury between groups when defined as definition 1 (no-stent 23.76% vs stent 26.19%, p = 0.745) and as definition 2 (no-stent 15.86% vs stent 14.8%, p = 0.867). Subgroup analysis showed that lighted stents were associated with significantly more acute kidney injury than no-stent patients when defined as definition 1 ( p = 0.017) but not when defined as definition 2 ( p = 0.311).

LIMITATIONS

Single-institution results may not be generalizable.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic ureteral stenting does not increase the risk of acute kidney injury for patients undergoing enhanced recovery colorectal surgery, although caution and further study may be warranted for lighted stents. Studies further examining contrasting roles of ureter stenting and imaging in open and minimally invasive colorectal surgery are warranted. See Video Abstract.

LOS STENTS URETERALES NO AUMENTAN EL RIESGO DE LESIN RENAL AGUDA DESPUS DE LA CIRUGA COLORECTAL

ANTECEDENTES:Se cree que los stents ureterales previenen o ayudan a identificar las lesiones ureterales. Los estudios que sugieren que los stents ureterales aumentan el riesgo de lesión renal aguda post operatoria muestran conclusiones contradictorias. El gran volumen de endoprótesis ureterales en nuestra institución brindó una oportunidad única para el análisis granular que no se informó anteriormente.OBJETIVO:Determinar si la colocación de stent ureteral profiláctico en cirugía colorrectal aumenta el daño renal agudo.DISEÑO:El análisis retrospectivo de operaciones colorrectales con stents ureterales profilácticos se comparó con operaciones sin stents. El análisis ajustado se realizó con ponderación de tratamiento de probabilidad inversa.AJUSTES:Cirugía colorrectal de recuperación mejorada de una sola instituciónPACIENTES:Base de datos institucional prospectiva entre el 01/07/2018 y el 31/12/2021.MEDIDA DE RESULTADO PRINCIPAL:El resultado primario fue la lesión renal aguda definida como un aumento en la creatinina ≥ 0,3 mg/dL (Definición n.° 1) y un aumento de 1,5 veces en la creatinina (Definición n.° 2) dentro de las 48 horas posteriores a la operación.RESULTADOS:Hubo 410 pacientes en la población de estudio: 310 pacientes en el grupo Stent y 100 en el grupo No-Stent. Hubo 8 lesiones ureterales operatorias, 4 (1,29%) en el grupo Stent y 4 (4,0%) en el grupo No-Stent (p = 0,103). El análisis no ajustado no reveló diferencias significativas en la lesión renal aguda entre los grupos. Después del ajuste, todavía no hubo una diferencia significativa en la lesión renal aguda entre los grupos cuando se definió como Definición n.º 1 (sin stent 23,76 % frente a stent 26,19 %, p = 0,745) y por definición n.º 2 (sin stent 15,86 % frente a stent 14,8 %, p = 0,867). El análisis de sub grupos mostró que los stents iluminados se asociaron con una lesión renal aguda significativamente mayor que los pacientes sin stent cuando se definieron como Definición n.º 1 (p = 0,017), pero no cuando se los definió como Definición n.º 2 (p = 0,311).LIMITACIONES:Los resultados de una sola institución pueden no ser generalizables.CONCLUSIÓN:La colocación profiláctica de endoprótesis ureterales no aumenta el riesgo de lesión renal aguda en pacientes que se someten a cirugía colorrectal de recuperación mejorada, aunque es posible que se requiera precaución y estudios adicionales para las endoprótesis iluminadas. Se justifican estudios que examinen más a fondo las funciones contrastantes de la colocación de stents de uréter y las imágenes en la cirugía colorrectal abierta y mínimamente invasiva. (Traducción-Dr. Mauricio Santamaria ).

Indocyanine green fluorescence in gastrointestinal surgery: Appraisal of current evidence

Applying indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence in surgery has created a new dimension of navigation surgery to advance in various disciplines. The research in this field is nascent and fragmented, necessitating academic efforts to gain a comprehensive understanding. The present review aims to integrate diverse perspectives and recent advances in its application in gastrointestinal surgery. The relevant articles were selected by using the appropriate keyword search in PubMed. The angiography and cholangiography property of ICG fluorescence is helpful in various hepatobiliary disorders. In gastroesophageal and colorectal surgery, the lymphangiography and angiography property of ICG is applied to evaluate bowel vascularity and guide lymphadenectomy. The lack of objective parameters to assess ICG fluorescence has been the primary limitation when ICG is used to evaluate bowel perfusion. The optimum dose and timing of ICG administration need to be standardized in some new application areas in gastrointestinal surgery. Binding tumor-specific ligands with fluorophores can potentially widen the fluorescence application to detect primary and metastatic gastrointestinal tumors. The narrative review outlines prior contributions, limitations, and research opportunities for future studies across gastrointestinal sub-specialty. The findings of the present review would be helpful for scholars and practitioners to explore and progress in this exciting domain of gastrointestinal surgery.

The Use of Prophylactic Ureteric Stents in Major Abdomino-Pelvic Sarcoma Surgery: Risks, Benefits, and Potential Complications

Here we present two cases of post-operative obstructive renal failure following major abdomino-pelvic sarcoma surgery. In both cases, prophylactic ureteric stents were inserted to aid the identification and protection of the ureters during resection of these complex retroperitoneal masses. In case one, obstructive renal failure occurred following ureteric stent removal on day 0 post-operatively. In case two, obstructive renal failure developed on day 1 post-operatively despite having a ureteric stent in situ. Here we propose that a combination of reflex anuria/ureteric edema and papillary sloughing led to the obstructive renal failure in both cases. Re-insertion of bilateral ureteric stents in case one, and replacement of a right ureteric stent in case two saw prompt excretion of urine and sloughy debris with rapid improvement of renal function. This article presents these cases in detail and further reviews the use of prophylactic ureteric stents in major abdomino-pelvic surgery along with the current guidelines for their usage.

A case of one-stage laparoscopic drainage and ureterocystoneostomy for iatrogenic ureteral injury associated with infected urinoma

Introduction

Iatrogenic ureteral injury is a rare but often encountered complication of abdominal and gynecological surgery. This is a case of iatrogenic ureteral injury with infected urinoma treated with one-stage laparoscopic drainage and ureterocystoneostomy.

Case presentation

An 80-year-old man with rectal cancer had robot-assisted low anterior rectum resection and left lateral lymph node dissection after colostomy and preoperative chemoradiotherapy. On the 14th postoperative day, he had a fever, and a noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography scan revealed a low-density polycystic area in the left pelvic cavity. Retrograde pyelography revealed contrast medium leaking from the left lower ureter, preventing ureteral stent placement. We identified it as a delayed ureteral injury with infected urinoma and performed laparoscopic one-stage drainage and ureterocystoneostomy.

Conclusion

This study reported a case of one-stage laparoscopic drainage and ureterocystoneostomy for iatrogenic ureteral injury with infected urinoma.

Ureteral Injury

CASE SUMMARY

A 70-year-old man underwent laparoscopic low anterior resection for a rectal adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Postoperatively, the patient had high drain volume output, with 800 mL of clear serous fluid being drained on the second postoperative day. Drain creatinine returned as 300 mmol/L, with a corresponding serum creatinine of 100 mmol/L. CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis confirmed a left ureteric injury with an associated urinoma. After urology consultation, the patient underwent a left ureteric reimplantation emergently.

2023 WSES guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of iatrogenic urinary tract injuries (IUTIs) during emergency digestive surgery

Iatrogenic urinary tract injury (IUTI) is a severe complication of emergency digestive surgery. It can lead to increased postoperative morbidity and mortality and have a long-term impact on the quality of life. The reported incidence of IUTIs varies greatly among the studies, ranging from 0.3 to 1.5%. Given the high volume of emergency digestive surgery performed worldwide, there is a need for well-defined and effective strategies to prevent and manage IUTIs. Currently, there is a lack of consensus regarding the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs in the emergency setting. The present guidelines, promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), were developed following a systematic review of the literature and an international expert panel discussion. The primary aim of these WSES guidelines is to provide evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and surgeons in the prevention, detection, and management of IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery. The following key aspects were considered: (1) effectiveness of preventive interventions for IUTIs during emergency digestive surgery; (2) intra-operative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies; (3) postoperative detection of IUTIs and appropriate management strategies and timing; and (4) effectiveness of antibiotic therapy (including type and duration) in case of IUTIs.

Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy postopen aortic replacement for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a case report

Colectomy for colorectal cancer after an open aortic replacement (OAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms has high perioperative complication and mortality rates.

Case presentation

The authors report the case of an 87-year-old man who underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy. The patient presented with edema of the lower legs and face, and blood test results indicated anemia. The patient had a history of OAR for an abdominal aortic aneurysm 9 years prior, a left common iliac artery aneurysm, and a jump bypass graft. A colonoscopy revealed a type 2 lesion in the sigmoid colon; he was diagnosed with moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. Preoperative computed tomography did not show any obvious lymph node or distant metastases. Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy with D3 lymphadenectomy was planned. During surgery, the use of the lateral approach allowed sigmoid mesocolon mobilization while confirming the presence of the artificial arteries. As the approach to the root of the inferior mesenteric artery was difficult, D1 lymphadenectomy was performed. No evidence of anastomotic leakage or artificial artery infection was observed postoperatively.

Clinical discussion

Intra-abdominal adhesions due to the prior OAR makes sigmoid mesocolon mobilization difficult. In cases where laminar structure cannot be recognized, other landmarks are needed.

Conclusions

After OAR, artificial arteries can be used as landmarks during colectomy. Although laparoscopic surgery is technically challenging, the magnified view provides an advantage in identifying these landmarks. Patients' surgical records for the previous OAR should be checked, and the positions of the vessels and ureters should be elucidated preoperatively using computed tomography.

Trends and benefits of prophylactic ureter catheters in the era of minimally invasive surgery

BACKGROUND

The recent spike in ureter injury (UI) amidst the rise of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has focused attention on the propriety of prophylactic ureter catheters (PUCs) for abdominopelvic operations.

METHODS

A retrospective review of PUCs for rectal cancer resection following neoadjuvant therapy, combined with a comprehensive literature review.

RESULTS

There were zero UI in the current study. Literature review revealed a nationwide spike in PUCs in the last 30 years, dependent on operation: 1) colorectal resection-increased from 1.1% to 4.4%, 2) sigmoid colectomy for diverticulitis-increased from 6.7% to 16.3%. This 2-4 fold increase parallels the rise of MIS: 15 of the 20 latest studies (75%) either combined open operations and MIS (4 studies) or focused solely on MIS (11 studies). Medial-to-lateral dissection identified as a UI risk factor. Only 20-30% of UI identified intraoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative UI is missed in 70-80% of cases. The prevention, identification, ease of ureter repair, and net decrease in operative time support the use of PUCs. Medial-to-lateral dissection is identified as a potential contributing factor to UI.

Localizing ureteral catheters for left-sided colectomy and proctectomy: Do the risks justify the benefits?

BACKGROUND

The role of ureteral catheters in left-sided colectomies and proctectomies remains debated. Given the rarity of ureteral injury, prior retrospective studies were underpowered to detect potentially small, but meaningful differences. This study seeks to determine the role and morbidity of ureteral catheters in left-sided colectomy and proctectomy using a large, national database.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project from 2012 to 2018 was queried. Left-sided colectomies or proctectomies were included. Propensity score matching and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

8419 patients with ureteral catherization and 128,021 patients without catheterization were included. After matching, there was not a significant difference in ureteral injury between the groups (0.7% with vs 0.9% without, p = 0.07). Ureteral catheters were associated with increased overall morbidity and longer operative time. Increasing body mass index, operations for diverticular disease, conversion to open, T4 disease and increasing operative complexity were associated with ureteral injury (p < 0.01 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Ureteral catheterization was not associated with decreased rates of ureteral injury when including all left-sided colectomies. High-risk patients for ureteral injury include those with obesity, diverticular disease, and conversion to open. Selective ureteral catheterization may be warranted in these settings.