Robotic Management of Benign Mid and Distal Ureteral Strictures and Comparison With Laparoscopic Approaches at a Single Institution

OBJECTIVE To present our experience and outcomes with robotic mid and distal ureteral reconstruction and to compare these results with our previous laparoscopic series. METHODS In an institutional review board-approved retrospective study, 16 patients underwent robotic mid and distal ureteral repair (13 ureteral reimplantations and 3 ureteroureterostomies) at our institution from August 2008 to September 2011. Proximal ureteral stricture, extrinsic obstruction, and ureteropelvic junction obstruction cases were excluded. The demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data were reviewed in the reimplantation and ureteroureterostomy robotic groups. These data were compared with the outcomes from our previously published series on laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation. RESULTS The data from 16 robotic procedures were included in the present study, including 2 open conversions because of excessive scar tissue. A symptomatic bowel injury (Clavien grade IIIb) occurred in 1 case. In our previous series, 5 of the 6 laparoscopic procedures were performed completely laparoscopically with 1 open conversion for anastomosis completion. No major complications occurred. The mean robotic surgery time was 258.6 minutes (range 146-450) compared with 276.5 minutes (range 180-360) for the laparoscopic group. The mean robotic hospital stay was 2.5 days (range 1-8) compared with 2.7 days (range 2-5) for the laparoscopic group. The mean robotic estimated blood loss was 171 mL (range 30-500) compared with 150 mL (range 50-250) for the laparoscopic group. All cases were clinically and radiographically successful at the last follow-up examination. CONCLUSION Although early in our experience, the robotic repair of mid and distal ureteral strictures appears to be an efficacious approach comparable to laparoscopy for such conditions. UROLOGY 80: 596-601, 2012. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc.