Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of ureteral rest on outcomes of robotic ureteral reconstruction. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent robotic ureteral reconstruction of proximal and/or middle ureteral strictures in our multi-institutional database between 2/2012-03/2019 with ≥12 months follow-up. All patients were recommended to undergo ureteral rest, which we defined as the absence of hardware (ie. double-J stent or percutaneous nephroureteral tube) across a ureteral stricture ≥4 weeks prior to reconstruction. However, patients who refused percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement did not undergo ureteral rest. Perioperative outcomes were compared after grouping patients according to whether or not they underwent ureteral rest. Continuous and categorical variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U and 2-tailed chi-squared tests, respectively; P <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS:Of 234 total patients, 194 (82.9%) underwent ureteral rest and 40 (17.1%) did not undergo ureteral rest prior to ureteral reconstruction. Patients undergoing ureteral rest were associated with a higher success rate compared to those not undergoing ureteral rest (90.7% versus 77.5%, respectively; P = .027). Also, patients undergoing ureteral rest were associated with lower estimated blood loss (50 versus 75 milliliters, respectively; p<0.001) and less likely to undergo buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (20.1% versus 37.5%, respectively; p=0.023). CONCLUSIONS:Implementing ureteral rest prior to ureteral reconstruction may allow for stricture maturation and is associated higher surgical success rates, lower estimated blood loss, and decreased utilization of buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To report our novel technique and mid-term follow up for robotic-assisted laparoscopic vaginectomy (RALV), a component procedure of staged gender-affirming penile reconstructive surgery (GAPRS). METHODS:The records of patients seeking GAPRS who underwent RALV, performed by a single surgeon at our institution, between May 2016 and January 2020 were reviewed retrospectively for demographic and perioperative data. Patients were included irrespective of history of previous phalloplasty. A subset of these patients elected to have urethral lengthening during second stage phalloplasty for which an anterior vaginal mucosa flap urethroplasty was performed. Postoperative complications and outcomes and most recent follow-up were obtained. RESULTS:A total of 42 patients were reviewed, of whom 19 (45%) patients ultimately had radial forearm free flap, 15 (41%) had anterolateral thigh flap, 5 (12%) had metoidioplasty, and 1 (2.4%) had abdominal phalloplasty. A vaginal mucosa and gracilis flap was used in all of 36 (86%) patients in whom a pars fixa was created. Average operative time was 299 minutes (range 153-506). Median estimated blood loss was 200 ml (range 100-400). Median length of stay was 3 days (range 1-7). Complications within 30 days from surgery occurred in 15 patients (36%), of whom 12/15 were Clavien-Dindo grade 1 or 2, and 11/15 had complications unrelated to vaginectomy. Of the 4 patients who had vaginectomy-related complications, all resolved with conservative management. Median overall follow-up was 15.8 months. CONCLUSIONS:RALV offers a safe and efficient approach during staged gender-affirming penile reconstruction and may mitigate the subsequent risk of urethral complications.

BACKGROUND:Gender-affirming surgery is becoming increasingly more common. Procedures including chest masculinization, breast augmentation, vaginoplasty, metoidioplasty, and phalloplasty routinely generate discarded tissue. The incidence of finding an occult malignancy or premalignant lesion in specimens from gender-affirming surgery is unknown. The authors therefore conducted a retrospective review of all transgender patients at their institution who underwent gender-affirming surgery to determine the incidence of precancerous and malignant lesions found incidentally. METHODS:A retrospective review of transgender patients who underwent gender-affirming surgery at the authors' institution between 2017 and 2018 performed by a single plastic surgeon and a single reconstructive urologic surgeon was conducted. Only transgender patients who underwent gender-affirming surgery that led to routine pathologic review of discarded tissue (mastectomy, vaginoplasty, vaginectomy as part of phalloplasty) were included. Charts were reviewed and patient demographics, duration of hormonal therapy, medical comorbidities, genetic risk factors for cancer, medications (including steroids or other immunosuppressants), pathology reports, and cancer management were recorded. RESULTS:Between 2017 and 2018, 295 transgender patients underwent gender-affirming surgery that generated discarded tissue sent for pathologic evaluation. During this period, 193 bilateral mastectomies, 94 vaginoplasties with orchiectomies, and eight vaginectomies were performed; 6.4 percent of all patients had an atypical lesion found on routine pathologic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS:Gender-affirming surgery is increasingly more common given the increase in access to care. The authors' review of routine pathologic specimens generated from gender-affirming surgery yielded a 6.4 percent rate of finding atypical lesions requiring further evaluation. The authors advocate that all specimens be sent for pathologic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE:To describe a technique for perineal urethrostomy (PU) revision using a posterior thigh propeller flap for a complex repair at high risk for stenosis. METHODS:Our technique utilizes the consistent posterior thigh perforators for a local flap with ideal length and thickness for repair. The stenotic PU is incised. Potential flaps are marked around a perforator blood supply closest to the defect. The flap is then elevated and rotated on its pedicle with its apex placed directly in the defect. Absorbable sutures partially tubularize the flap apex at the level of the urethrotomy which is calibrated to 30 Fr. We subsequently monitored the patient's clinical progress. RESULTS:With 17 months of follow-up the patient is voiding well without complaint, reports improved quality of life with a patent PU. Post void residuals have been less than 100cc. The patient, who has had a long history of urinary tract infections requiring hospitalization, has only reported one infection during follow up which was treated as an out-patient. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:For challenging PU revisions a distant local propeller flap of healthy tissue outside the zone of injury is the ideal choice for length, thickness, and minimal morbidity resulting in excellent clinical results for our patient.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report our intermediate-term, multi-institutional experience after robotic ureteral reconstruction for the management of long-segment proximal ureteral strictures. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed our Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery (CORRUS) database to identify all patients who underwent robotic ureteral reconstruction for long-segment (≥4 centimeters) proximal ureteral strictures between August 2012 and June 2019. The primary surgeon determined the specific technique to reconstruct the ureter at time of surgery based on the patient's clinical history and intraoperative findings. Our primary outcome was surgical success, which we defined as the absence of ureteral obstruction on radiographic imaging and absence of obstructive flank pain. RESULTS:Of 20 total patients, 4 (20.0%) underwent robotic ureteroureterostomy (RUU) with downward nephropexy (DN), 2 (10.0%) underwent robotic ureterocalycostomy (RUC) with DN, and 14 (70.0%) underwent robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft (RU-BMG). Median stricture length was 4 centimeters (interquartile range [IQR], 4-4; maximum, 5), 6 centimeters (IQR, 5-7; maximum, 8), and 5 centimeters (IQR, 4-5; maximum, 8) for patients undergoing RUU with DN, RUC with DN, and RU-BMG, respectively. At a median follow-up of 24 (IQR, 14-51) months, 17/20 (85.0%) cases were surgically successful. Two of four patients (50.0%) who underwent RUU with DN developed stricture recurrences within 3 months. CONCLUSIONS:Long-segment proximal ureteral strictures may be safely and effectively managed with RUC with DN and RU-BMG. Although RUU with DN can be utilized, this technique may be associated with a higher failure rate.

Robotically assisted laparoscopic techniques may be used for proximal and distal ureteral strictures. Distal strictures may be approached with ureteroneocystotomy, psoas hitch, and Boari flap. Ureteroureterostomy, buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty, and appendiceal flap ureteroplasty are viable techniques for strictures anywhere along the ureter. Ileal ureteral substitution is reserved for more extensive disease, and autotransplantation is reserved for salvage situations.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To update our prior multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft and analyze our intermediate-term outcomes. Although our previous multi-institutional report provided significant insight into the safety and efficacy associated with robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft, it was limited by small patient numbers. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional database to identify all patients who underwent robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft between 10/2013-03/2019 with ≥12 months follow up. Indication for surgery was a complex proximal and/or middle ureteral stricture not amenable to primary excision and anastomosis secondary to stricture length or peri-ureteral fibrosis. Surgical success was defined as the absence of obstructive flank pain and ureteral obstruction on functional imaging. RESULTS:Of 54 patients, 43 (79.6 %) patients underwent an onlay, and 11 (20.4%) patients underwent an augmented anastomotic robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft. Eighteen/54 (33.3%) patients previously failed a ureteral reconstruction. The median stricture length was 3.0 (IQR 2.0-4.0, range 1-8) centimeters. There were 3/54 (5.6%) major postoperative complications. The median length of stay was 1.0 (IQR 1.0-3.0) day. At a median follow-up of 27.5 (IQR 21.3-38.0) months, 47/54 (87.0%) cases were surgically successful. Stricture recurrences were diagnosed ≤2 months postoperatively in 3/7 (42.9%) patients, and ≥10 months postoperatively in 4/7 (57.1%) patients. CONCLUSIONS:Robotic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft is associated with low peri-operative morbidity and excellent intermediate-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To report our multi-institutional, comprehensive experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients with radiation-induced ureteral stricture (RIUS). PATIENTS & METHODS/METHODS:In a retrospective review of our multi-institutional robotic reconstruction database between January 2013 to January 2020, we identified patients with RIUS. Five major reconstruction techniques were utilized: end-to-end (anastomosing the bladder to the transected ureter) and side-to-side (anastomosing the bladder to an anterior ureterotomy proximal to the stricture without ureteral transection) ureteral reimplantation, buccal or appendiceal mucosa graft ureteroplasty, appendiceal bypass graft, and ileal ureter interposition. When necessary, adjunctive procedures were performed for mobility (i.e. psoas hitch) and improved vascularity (i.e. omental wrap). Outcomes of surgery were determined by absence of flank pain (clinical success) and absence of obstruction on imaging (radiological success). RESULTS:Total of 32 patients with 35 ureteral units underwent RUR with median stricture length of 2.5cm (IQR 2-5.5). End-to-end and side-to-side reimplantation were performed in 21 (60.0%) and 8 (22.9%) of RUR's, respectively; while 4 (11.4%) underwent an appendiceal procedure. One patient (2.9%) required a buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty, while another needed an ileal ureter interposition. The median operative time was 215 minutes (IQR 177-281), estimated blood loss was 100mL (IQR 50-150), and length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-3). One patient required repair of a small bowel leak. Another patient died from a major cardiac event and was excluded from follow up calculations. At a median follow up of 13 months (IQR 9-22), 30 ureteral units (88.2%) were clinically and radiologically successful. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:RUR can be performed in patients with RIUS with excellent outcomes. Surgeons must be prepared to perform adjunctive procedures for mobility and improved vascularity due to poor tissue quality. Caution must be taken in such reconstructive surgeries, especially with repeat procedures due to the risk of necrosis and failure.

BACKGROUND:Robotic-assisted peritoneal flap gender-affirming vaginoplasty (RPGAV) with the da Vinci Xi system has been reported to be a safe alternative to traditional penile inversion vaginoplasty. Utilizing the Single Port (SP) robot system, our surgical approach has evolved. OBJECTIVE:To describe a step-by-step technique for RPGAV using the SP robot and to compare outcomes between Xi and SP systems. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:A total of 145 transgender women underwent RPGAV between September 2017 and December 2019. We retrospectively reviewed data for patients with a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. SURGICAL PROCEDURE/METHODS:Peritoneal flaps are harvested from the posterior bladder and pararectal fossa. The vaginal space is dissected transabdominally. Inverted penile flap with or without scrotal graft is sutured to the peritoneal flaps, which form the neovaginal apex. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Demographics, perioperative data, and clinical outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:A total of 100 (Xi = 47; SP = 53) patients had a minimum 6 mo of follow-up. The mean age was 36.2 (range 16.1-71.4) yr. Average procedure times were 4.2 and 3.7 h in Xi and SP cohorts, respectively (p <0.001). At the mean follow-up of 11.9 (range 6.0-25.4) mo, vaginal depth and width were 13.6 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 2.9-3.8) cm in the Xi group, and 14.1 (range 9.7-14.5) and 3.7 (range 3.5-3.8) cm in the SP group (p =0.07 and 0.04, respectively). Complications included transfusion (6%), rectovaginal fistula (1%), bowel obstruction (2%), pelvic abscess (1%), and vaginal stenosis (7%). CONCLUSIONS:RPGAV using the SP robot reduces operative time by facilitating a dual-surgeon abdominal-perineal approach. There is no difference in complication rates between the two approaches. PATIENT SUMMARY/UNASSIGNED:We studied the outcomes of robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty with two robot systems. With both systems, patients had good vaginal depth and width at an average follow-up of 1 yr. Surgery time was shorter with the Single Port (SP) robot.