Regístrese
Buscar en
Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition) A comparative study of different surgical techniques for the management of dista...
Journal Information
Vol. 43. Issue 10.
Pages 543-550 (December 2019)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
ePub
Visits
4
Vol. 43. Issue 10.
Pages 543-550 (December 2019)
Original article
DOI: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2019.07.006
A comparative study of different surgical techniques for the management of distal ureter during laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy
Estudio comparativo de diferentes técnicas quirúrgicas para el manejo del uréter distal durante la nefroureterectomía laparoscópica
Visits
4
A. Carriona,
Corresponding author
acarrionpuig@gmail.com

Corresponding author.
, M.J. Ribalc, J. Morotea, J. Huguetb, C. Raventósa, F. Lozanoa, M. Costa-Grauc, A. Alcarazc
a Departamento de Urología, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
b Departamento de Urología, Fundación Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
c Departamento de Urología, Hospital Clínic, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (1)
Tables (4)
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of all patients undergoing LRNU for UUTT.
Table 2. Descriptive characteristics of the patients according to the surgical approach: endoscopic or open.
Table 3. Bladder/extraurothelial recurrence and cancer-specific survival according to the type of detachment.
Table 4. Univariate and multivariate analysis of the potential prognostic factors of bladder/extraurothelial recurrence and CSS in patients undergoing LRNU for UTUC.
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Objectives

To compare the oncological outcomes between two open surgical techniques and two endoscopic approaches for the management of the distal ureter during laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (LRNU).

Material and methods

Retrospective review of 152 patients submitted to LRNU for the management of upper urinary tract tumors between 2007 and 2014. We analyzed the potential impact of two different open surgical (extravesical vs intravesical) and two endoscopic (resection of ureteral orifice and fragment removal vs endoscopic bladder cuff) techniques on the development of bladder recurrence, distant/local recurrence and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

Results

A total of 152 patients with a mean age of 69.9 years (±10.1) underwent LRNU. We reported 62 pTa-T1 (41%), 35 pT2 (23%) and 55 pT3-4 (36%). Thirty-two were low grade (21.1%) and 120 high grade (78.9%). An endoscopic approach was performed in 89 cases (58.5%), 32 with resection (36%) and 57 with bladder cuff (64%), and open approach in 63 (41.5%), 42 intravesical (66.7%) and 21 extravesical (33.3%). Within a median follow-up of 32 months (3–120), 38 patients (25%) developed bladder recurrence, 42 distant/local recurrence (27.6%) and 34 died of tumor (22.4%). In the univariate analysis, the type of endoscopic technique was not related to bladder recurrence (p=0.961), distant/local recurrence (p=0.955) nor CSS (p=0.802). The open extravesical approach was not related to bladder recurrence (p=0.12) but increased distant/local recurrence (p=0.045) and decreased CSS (p=0.034) compared to intravesical approach.

Conclusions

LRNU outcomes are not dependant on the type of endoscopic approach performed. The open extravesical approach is a more difficult technique and could worsen the oncological outcomes when compared to the intravesical.

Keywords:
Ureteral endoscopic detachment
Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy
Management of distal ureter
Oncological outcomes
Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma
Resumen
Objetivos

Comparar los resultados oncológicos de dos técnicas quirúrgicas abiertas y dos endoscópicas para el manejo del uréter distal durante nefroureterectomía laparoscópica (NUL).

Material y métodos

Revisión retrospectiva de 152 pacientes sometidos a NUL por tumor del tramo urinario superior entre 2007 y 2014. Se analizó el potencial impacto de distintas técnicas de desinserción abierta (extravesical vs. intravesical) y endoscópica (resección meato con evacuación de fragmentos vs. rodete perimeático) sobre el desarrollo de recidiva vesical, extraurotelial y supervivencia cáncer-específica (SCE).

Resultados

Un total de 152 pacientes con edad media de 69,9 años (±10,1) fueron sometidos a NUL. Se reportaron 62 pTa-T1 (41%), 35 pT2 (23%) y 55 pT3-4 (36%). Treinta y dos fueron bajo grado (21,1%) y 120 alto grado (78,9%). Se realizó desinserción endoscópica en 89 casos (58,5%), 32 con resección (36%) y 57 con rodete (64%), y abierta en 63 (41,5%), 42 intravesical (66,7%) y 21 extravesical (33,3%). Con mediana de seguimiento de 32 meses (3-120), 38 pacientes (25%) desarrollaron recidiva vesical, 42 extraurotelial (27,6%) y 34 murieron por tumor (22,4%). En el análisis univariante, el tipo de técnica endoscópica no se relacionó con recidiva vesical (p=0,961), extraurotelial (p=0,955) ni SCE (p=0,802). El abordaje abierto extravesical no se relacionó con recidiva vesical (p=0,12) pero sí con aumento de recidiva extraurotelial (p=0,045) y menor SCE (p=0,034) respecto al intravesical.

Conclusiones

El subtipo de desinserción endoscópica no influye en los resultados de la NUL. La desinserción abierta extravesical es una técnica más compleja que la intravesical y podría empeorar los resultados oncológicos.

Palabras clave:
Desinserción ureteral endoscópica
Manejo del uréter distal
Nefroureterectomía radical laparoscópica
Resultados oncológicos
Tumor del tramo urinario superior

Article

These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)
Subscriber
Subscriber

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option “I have forgotten my password”
Subscribe
Subscribe to

Actas Urológicas Españolas (English Edition)

Comprar
Comprar acceso al artículo

Comprando el artículo el PDF del mismo podrá ser descargado

Precio 22,50 €

Comprar ahora
Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
E-mail
Article options
Tools
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

es en pt
Política de cookies Cookies policy Política de cookies
Utilizamos cookies propias y de terceros para mejorar nuestros servicios y mostrarle publicidad relacionada con sus preferencias mediante el análisis de sus hábitos de navegación. Si continua navegando, consideramos que acepta su uso. Puede cambiar la configuración u obtener más información aquí. To improve our services and products, we use "cookies" (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here. Utilizamos cookies próprios e de terceiros para melhorar nossos serviços e mostrar publicidade relacionada às suas preferências, analisando seus hábitos de navegação. Se continuar a navegar, consideramos que aceita o seu uso. Você pode alterar a configuração ou obter mais informações aqui.