A systematic review of the role of prophylactic ureteric stenting prior to colorectal resections

“There is a need for strategies to reduce the risk of ureteric injury, and to facilitate immediate recognition, during colorectal procedures. The preoperative placement of prophylactic ureteric stents or catheters has long been discussed as a technique that may assist colorectal surgeons in identifying and avoiding the ureters, and in recognising ureteric injury when it occurs.
Debate surrounds this topic, however, with no consensus on the precise benefit of prophylactic ureteric stents, and some concerns regarding potential stent-related complications. Whilst the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines state that ‘visual identification of the ureters and meticulous dissection in their vicinity are mandatory
to prevent ureteral trauma during abdominal and pelvic surgery’ (grade A recommendation), the use of ‘preoperative prophylactic stents’ are recommended only ‘in selected cases (based on risk factors and surgeon’s experience)’ (grade B). The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons guidelines in surgery for diverticulitis state ‘ureteral stents are used at the discretion of the surgeon’ (grade 2C).

Table 4 Type of repair and outcomes of ureteric injuries

StudyInjuries (n)Stented and recognised intraoperativelyStented and recognised postoperativelyUnstented and recognised intraoperativelyUnstented and recognised postoperatively
Bothwell [41](open)4/5611/4—primary repair over stent1/4 (stent insertion had failed)—nephrostomy + stent1/4—stent inserted and repair performed1/4 re-exploration and ureteroureterostomy
Beraldo [32](laparoscopic)1/891/89—repair technique not specified
Boyan [34] (laparoscopic)None
Chahin [35]1/661/66 recognised day 2, managed by retrograde stent reinsertion
Chiu [8]2503/811,071Not evaluated
Coakley [3]333/51,125Not evaluated
Chong [29]None
Hassinger [38]Not evaluated
Kutiyanawala [44]5/251No stented patientsNo stented patients3/5—ureteric re-implant × 2 and ureteroureterostomy over stent in × 12/5Nephrostomy + JJ stent × 1 (prolonged recovery, fistula)Relaparotomy + removal of ligasure × 1
Kyzer [33]1/1181/1 repair technique not specified
Leff [19]4/1943/4OPEN intraoperative repair1/4—delayed presentation as ureteral-cutaneous fistulaNot evaluatedNot evaluated
Luks [39]2/2612/2 intraoperative repair, type unspecified
Merola [28]1/374None1 injury, recognised postoperatively—re-operation (repair not specified)NoneNone
Nam [27]None
Pathak [42]None
Palaniappa [45] 2012(Open arm)7/46691/7Ureteroneocystostomy1/7Nephrostomy3/7Ureteroneocystostomy × 1, ureteroureterostomy × 22/7Bilateral nephrostomies × 1Ureteroureterostomy × 1
Palaniappa [45]2012(Laparoscopic arm)7/10601/7 Ureteroureterostomy1/7 Ureteroneocystostomy2/7Ureteroneocystostomy × 1Ureteroureterostomy × 13/7Ureteroneocystostomy × 1Nephrostomy × 2
Pokala [30]0
Sahoo [40]0    
Senagore [36]0
Sheikh [43]Not reported
Speicher [31]Not reported
Tsujinaka [37]0

Continue reading

Iatrogenic urologic injuries 

Ferrara M, Kann BR. Urological injuries during colorectal surgery. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2019 May;32(3):196-203.

“A recent retrospective population-based study of patients in the United States undergoing colorectal surgery found the overall incidence of ureteral injury to be 0.28%. The incidence was found to be significantly higher in patients with stage 3 or 4 cancer, malnutrition, steroid use, and in operations done at teaching hospitals. Rectal cancer cases were found to have the highest rates of ureteral injuries (7.1/1,000), followed by Crohn’s disease and diverticular disease (2.9/1,000 each). In this review, laparoscopic surgery was associated with a lower incidence of ureteral injuries when compared with open (1.1 vs. 2.8/1,000, p  < 0.001). Of the specific operations reviewed, abdominoperineal resection (APR) was found to have the highest rate of ureteral injury at 7.1/1,000 cases.” (Ferrara, 2019, p. 196)

Continue reading

Iatrogenic ureteral injury in colorectal cancer surgery

Andersen P, et al. Iatrogenic ureteral injury in colorectal cancer surgery: a nationwide study comparing laparoscopic and open approaches. Surg Endosc. 2015 Jun;29(6): 1406-12.

Full-text for Emory users.

Results: A total of 18,474 patients had a resection for colorectal cancer. Eighty-two ureteral injuries were related to colorectal surgery. The rate of ureteral injuries in the entire cohort was 0.44 %, with 37 (0.59 %) injuries in the laparoscopic group (n = 6,291) and 45 (0.37 %) injuries in the open group (n = 12,183), (P = 0.03). No difference in ureteral injury was found in relation to surgical approach in colon cancer patients. In rectum cancer patients (n = 5,959), the laparoscopic approach was used in 1,899 patients, and 19 (1.00 %) had ureteral injuries, whereas 17 (0.42 %) of 4,060 patients who underwent an open resection had a ureteral injury. In multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, ASA score, BMI, tumor stage, preoperative chemo-radiation, calendar year, and specialty of the surgeon, the laparoscopic approach was associated with an increased risk of ureteral injury, OR = 2.67; 95 % CI 1.26-5.65.

Conclusion: In this nationwide study laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer with curative intent was associated with a significantly increased risk of iatrogenic ureteral injury compared to open surgery.

Continue reading