Pd44-07 Comparison of Open and Robotic Transplant Ureteral Reimplant

You have accessJournal of UrologyReconstruction: Ureteral Reconstruction (Including Pyeloplasty) and Bladder Reconstruction (Including Trauma-Related Fistula) II (PD44)1 May 2024PD44-07 COMPARISON OF OPEN AND ROBOTIC TRANSPLANT URETERAL REIMPLANT Kian Ahmadieh, Sayi Boddu, Victoria Edmonds, Mouneeb Choudry, Grace Madura, Nicolette Payne, Daniel Heidenberg, and Scott Cheney Kian AhmadiehKian Ahmadieh , Sayi BodduSayi Boddu , Victoria EdmondsVictoria Edmonds , Mouneeb ChoudryMouneeb Choudry , Grace MaduraGrace Madura , Nicolette PayneNicolette Payne , Daniel HeidenbergDaniel Heidenberg , and Scott CheneyScott Cheney View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008800.83683.92.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Ureteral stricture is a potential complication after kidney transplant with possible precipitating factors including devascularization of the ureter, urine leak, and pelvic hematoma. Surgical repair of transplant ureteral strictures are classically performed with an open approach, though robotic techniques have emerged. Minimal data exists comparing open and robotic transplant ureteral reimplants. The objective of our study was to compare patient perioperative metrics and clinical outcomes after open vs. robotic ureteral reimplantation for transplant ureteral stricture disease. METHODS: All patients who underwent ureteral reimplantation of a transplanted kidney at three tertiary care centers were retrospectively reviewed over a 10-year-period. Inclusion criteria included patients who underwent ureteral reimplantation for delayed ureteral strictures with at least one year of follow up data. We compared patient demographics, perioperative metrics, and postoperative clinical outcomes between open and robotic ureteral reimplantation. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients underwent transplant ureteral reimplantation (47 open vs. 42 robotic). Patients in each cohort had similar baseline characteristics (Table 1). Time to recognition of ureteral stricture were similar in the open and robotic groups (7 mo vs 4 mo, p=0.224), with similar stricture length (3 cm vs 2 cm, p=0.21). Open reimplantation had shorter operative times than robotic (161min vs 271min, p<.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in length of stay, 30-day post-surgical complications, or improvement in creatinine post reimplantation (Table 2). Stricture recurrence was similar in both the open and robotic cohorts (3.9% vs 4.4 %, p=1). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and open transplant ureteral reimplantation techniques demonstrate similar postoperative clinical outcomes. Patients in both groups had similar postoperative complications and rates of stricture recurrence. Shared decision making and surgeon technical experience should guide surgical planning. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e907 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Kian Ahmadieh More articles by this author Sayi Boddu More articles by this author Victoria Edmonds More articles by this author Mouneeb Choudry More articles by this author Grace Madura More articles by this author Nicolette Payne More articles by this author Daniel Heidenberg More articles by this author Scott Cheney More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...