Objective: To characterize our single institutional experience with robotic and open uretero-enteric stricture (UES) repair. Materials and Methods: We queried our ureteral reconstructive database for UES repair between 01/2017 and 10/2023. Patients with <3 months follow-up were excluded. Prior to surgery, patients underwent ureteral rest (4 weeks) with conversion to nephrostomy tube. Clinical characteristics, complications, reconstructive success (uretero-enteric patency), need for repeat intervention, and renal function were assessed in patients undergoing open and robotic UES reconstruction. Results: Of 50 patients undergoing UES repair during the study period, 45 were included for analysis due to complete follow-up (34 [76%] robotic and 11 [24%] open repair). UES repair was performed in 50 renal units a median of 13 months (interquartile range 7-30) from index surgery, and most often involved the left renal unit (34/50; 68%). Compared with robotic, open cases were significantly more likely to have undergone open cystectomy (100% vs 68%, p = 0.04), have longer strictures (median 4 vs 1 cm, p < 0.001), require tissue substitution (27% vs 3%, p = 0.04), and have lengthier postoperative hospitalization (5 vs 2 days, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in total operative time (410 vs 322 minutes) or 30d major complications (18% vs 21%). At a follow-up of 13 months, per patient reconstructive success was 100% (11/11) for open and 97% (33/34) for robotic, respectively. Conclusion: In select patients with short UES unlikely to require advanced reconstructive techniques, a robotic-assisted approach can be considered. Careful patient selection is associated with limited morbidity and high reconstructive success.
Keywords: anastomotic stricture; radical cystectomy; robotic surgery; uretero-enteric stricture.