Retrograde Endourological Management of Upper Urinary Tract Abnormalities in Patients with Ileal Conduit Urinary Diversion: A Dual-Center Experience

• Published in: Journal of endourology Vol. 31; no. 9; p. 841
• Main Authors: Olson, Louise, Satherley, Hywel, Cleaveland, Paul, Zelhof, Bachar, Mokete, Max, Neilson, Donald, Srirangam, Shalom
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.09.2017
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Constriction, Pathologic - surgery; Device Removal; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications - surgery; Postoperative Hemorrhage - epidemiology; Retrospective Studies; Stents; Ureteroscopes; Ureteroscopy - methods; Urinary Diversion; Urolithiasis - surgery; renal stone; instrumentation; laser; ureteroscopy; percutaneous renal surgery; urinary diversion
• ISSN: 1557-900X
• DOI: 10.1089/end.2017.0271

Patients with ileal conduit urinary diversions are at an increased risk of long-term upper urinary tract (UUT) complications, including anastomotic strictures, infections, and urolithiasis. The reconstructed urinary system poses challenges for endoscopic manipulation. We present and describe our dual-center experience in performing retrograde ureteroscopy to treat or diagnose UUT abnormalities in patients with ileal conduit incontinent diversion. We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records for all patients with previous urinary diversion who underwent retrograde ureteroscopic procedures via the ileal loop in our institutions over a 9 year period (between June 2007 and August 2016). Fifty-four procedures were performed in 36 patients. Mean age was 61 (28-90) years. Average time from diversion to ureteroscopic procedure was 13.0 (0.08-53) years. Stone disease was the most common indication for intervention in 35.2% (19/54) of cases, with a stone-free rate of 78.9% (15/19). Other indications included surveillance of transitional-cell carcinoma in 22.2% (12/54), diagnostic flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) in 20.4% (11/54), stricture management in 11.1% (6/54), removal of encrusted stent/nephrostomy in 7.4% (4/54), urine leak after diversion in 1.9% (1/54), and miscellaneous in 1.9% (1/54). Successful retrograde access was possible in 74% (40/54) of cases. A long and tortuous ileal segment, too difficult to negotiate, was the most common cause of failure to access the UUT. In 13 out of 54 (24.1%) cases, retrograde fURS was combined with simultaneous percutaneous antegrade access. Six patients (11.1%) developed postprocedural pyrexia requiring additional antibiotic therapy, and one (1.9%) patient required embolization of the renal artery for ongoing bleeding. Median length of stay was 1 day (0-55), with 13 (24%) being performed as day-case procedures. Retrograde ureteroscopy in patients with ileal conduits can be technically challenging due to distorted anatomy. This procedure can be safely performed in experienced hands with standard endourological equipment. An antegrade approach can be carried out simultaneously, which may be required in a small number of patients.