Robotic vs. open surgical management of ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures: technical modifications to enhance success

Development of ureteroanastamotic strictures (UAS) after urinary diversion is not uncommon, but is challenging to treat. Poor outcomes are likely with endoscopic and radiologic management, and definitive surgical treatment can cause significant morbidity. The comparative advantages of an operative approach have not yet been fully described in the literature. We retrospectively reviewed the prospectively maintained Tulane University Department of Urology quality assurance database of 12 patients who underwent operative UAS repair between 2012 and 2018. Data were reviewed for operative approach, demographics, baseline disease characteristics, operative variables, and perioperative and pathological outcomes. Of the 12 patients analyzed, 5 underwent open repair (OR) (2 bilateral, 2 right, 1 left) and 7 underwent robotic repair (RR) (3 right, 4 left). One robotic case required conversion to open due to significant intestinal and peri-ureteral adhesions. The median ages were 59 years in OR and 60 years in RR. Two patients in each group had failed previous endoscopic repair. Median time from cystectomy to treatment of enteroanastamotic stricture was 13 months for OR and 10 months for RR (p = 0.25). Median estimated blood loss was 80 mL in both OR and RR (p = 1.0), median operative time was 260 min in OR and 255 min in RR (p = 0.13), and median hospital stay was 8 and 4 days, respectively (p = 0.06). There were two intra-operative and one post-operative complication in the OR group, one of whom required further surgical intervention, and no complications in the robotic cohort. A minimally invasive, robotic approach offers a non-inferior alternative to OR with similar outcomes for appropriately selected patients with UAS. High success rates combined with minimal morbidity may provide definitive therapy at an earlier stage of the stricture state.