Faculty Bibliography

Ureteral strictures are a common and often challenging complication of renal transplantation. The use of single-port (SP) robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a novel approach in the management of these patients. Here we describe 3 patients with stricture of the transplant ureter causing hydronephrosis and allograft dysfunction, whose ureteral reconstructions were successfully performed using the SP robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach. Two patients underwent transplant-to-native ureteroureterostomy and 1 patient underwent ureteroneocystostomy. We demonstrate that the use of concurrent ureteroscopy and near-infrared fluorescence enables safe and rapid identification of native and transplant ureters. In addition, side-to-side anastomosis of transplant-to-native ureters allows for preservation of ureteral vasculature. In this limited series, the SP robotic platform demonstrates great promise in simplifying and streamlining our approach to ureteral strictures in this patient population.

Objectives: To describe our multi-institutional experience with robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) in patients who failed prior endoscopic and/or surgical management. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery (CORRUS) database for all consecutive patients who underwent RUR between 05/2012 and 01/2020 for a recurrent ureteral stricture after having undergone prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical repair. Post-operatively, patients were assessed for surgical success, defined as the absence of flank pain and obstruction on imaging. Results: Overall, 105 patients met inclusion criteria. Median stricture length was 2 (IQR 1"“3) centimetres. Strictures were located at the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ) (41.0%), proximal (14.3%), middle (9.5%) or distal (35.2%) ureter. There were nine (8.6%) radiation-induced strictures. Prior failed management included endoscopic intervention (49.5%), surgical repair (25.7%) or both (24.8%). For repair of UPJ and proximal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (3.4%), ureterocalicostomy (5.2%), pyeloplasty (53.5%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (37.9%) was utilized; for repair of middle strictures, ureteroureterostomy (20.0%) or buccal mucosa graft ureteroplasty (80.0%) was utilized; for repair of distal strictures, ureteroureterostomy (8.1%), side-to-side reimplant (18.9%), end-to-end reimplant (70.3%) or appendiceal bypass (2.7%) was utilized. Major (Clavien >2) post-operative complications occurred in two (1.9%) patients. At a median follow-up of 15.1 (IQR 5.0"“30.4) months, 94 (89.5%) cases were surgically successful. Conclusions: RUR may be performed with good intermediate-term outcomes for patients with recurrent strictures after prior failed endoscopic and/or surgical management.

OBJECTIVE:To determine surgical outcomes in a large of cohort men undergoing robotic-assisted posterior urethroplasty (RPU), which has been described in small series as a viable option. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We performed a retrospective review of all 105 men who underwent RPU from October 2014 to August 2022 at a single institution. We evaluated postoperative outcomes, including complications; surgical success defined as no need for reintervention; and incontinence requiring artificial urinary sphincter placement. We performed descriptive statistics and chi-square testing to determine if outcomes were associated with certain posterior urethral disease etiologies. RESULTS:Mean follow-up time was 18.7months. Over half of patients (57.1%) received prior pelvic radiation. The most common reconstructive techniques were excision and primary anastomosis (n = 45, 30.0%), resitting of the bladder neck (n = 26, 24.8%), Y-V plasty (n = 21, 20.0%), and buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (n = 14, 13.3%). Forty-one patients (39.0%) required a combined abdominoperineal approach. Seven patients (6.7%) had ≥CD grade 3 complications within 30days. Thirty patients (28.6%) developed incontinence with subsequent artificial urinary sphincter placement. One-quarter (24.8%) of patients required at least one subsequent surgical reintervention. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In the largest RPU cohort to date, surgical success rates were similar and continence rates were improved compared to open surgery and align with existing robotic series, adding to the growing body of evidence demonstrating advantages of RPU.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:We sought to determine whether preoperative stricture length measurement affected the choice of procedure performed, its correlation to intraoperative stricture length, and postoperative outcomes. METHODS:The Collaborative of Reconstructive Robotic Ureteral Surgery (CORRUS) database was queried for patients undergoing robotic ureteral reconstructive surgery from 2013 to 2021 who had surgical stricture length measurement. From this cohort, we identified patients with and without preoperative stricture length measurement via retrograde pyelogram or antegrade nephrostogram. Outcomes evaluated included intraoperative complications, 30-day complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade II, hardware-free status, and need for additional procedures. RESULTS:Of 153 patients with surgical stricture length measurements, 102 (66.7%) had preoperative radiographic measurement. No repair type was more likely to have preoperative measurement. The Pearson correlation coefficient between surgical and radiographic stricture length measurements was + 0.79. The average surgical measurement was 0.71 cm (± 1.52) longer than radiographic assessment. Those with preoperative imaging waited on average 5.0 months longer for surgery, but this finding was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in intraoperative complications, 30-day complication rates, hardware-free status at last follow-up, or need for additional procedures between patients with and without preoperative measurement. The only significant predictive factor was preoperative stricture length on 30-day postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS:Despite relatively high prevalence of preoperative radiographic stricture length measurement, there are few measures where it offers clinically meaningful diagnostic information towards the definitive surgical management of ureteral stricture disease.

Since the US Food and Drug Administration first approved robotic surgery for clinical use in 2000, it has gained widespread adoption across multiple surgical domains. While pediatric surgery has had a relatively slower adoption rate, robotic surgery has nonetheless grown in this context. This work traces the historical and regulatory aspects of pediatric robotic surgery, showing how it incorporated an existing robotic surgical system developed for adults; situates the technology within ethical frameworks for analyzing surgical innovation; and advocates for combined surgeon self-regulation and institutional oversight. Finally, the argument is made that there are key unmet technological needs pertaining to instrument size and adaptability secondary to pediatric robotic surgery's smaller market share and that clinicians and producers of robotic surgical systems should work to address these needs.

Use of body mass index (BMI) as a health care metric is controversial, especially in candidacy assessments for gender-affirming surgery. When considering experiences of fat trans individuals, it is important to advocate for equitable divisions of responsibility for and recognition of systemic fat phobia. This commentary on a case suggests strategies for increasing equitable access to safe surgery for all body types. If surgeons use BMI thresholds, simultaneous effort must be made to advocate for data collection so that surgical candidacy criteria are evidence-based and equitably applied.

UNLABELLED:Penile inversion vaginoplasty is the most common gender-affirming genital surgery performed around the world. Although individual centers have published their experiences, expert consensus is generally lacking. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Semistructured interviews were performed with 17 experienced gender surgeons representing a diverse mix of specialties, experience, and countries regarding their patient selection, preoperative management, vaginoplasty techniques, complication management, and postoperative protocols. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:There is significant consistency in practices across some aspects of vaginoplasty. However, key areas of clinical heterogeneity are also present and include use of extragenital tissue for vaginal canal/apex creation, creation of the clitoral hood and inner labia minora, elevation of the neoclitoral neurovascular bundle, and perioperative hormone management. Pathway length of stay is highly variable (1-9 days). Lastly, some surgeons are moving toward continuation or partial reduction of estrogen in the perioperative period instead of cessation. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:With a broad study of surgeon practices, and encompassing most of the high-volume vaginoplasty centers in Europe and North America, we found key areas of practice variation that represent areas of priority for future research to address. Further multi-institutional and prospective studies that incorporate patient-reported outcomes are necessary to further our understanding of these procedures.

Surgeons often encounter patients with realistic goals yet who desire unrealistic means of achieving them. This tension is compounded when surgeons consult with patients eager to revise a prior gender-affirming procedure completed by another surgeon. Two key factors of ethical and clinical relevance are that (1) a consulting surgeon's job is complicated when a population-specific evidence base is lacking and (2) a patient's marginalization is exacerbated by their having suffered the downstream effects of compromised initial access to comprehensive, realistic surgical care. This case commentary about revision of gender-affirming phalloplasty canvasses the pitfalls of a limited evidence base and focuses on strategies surgeons can use to help guide consultation. In particular, informed consent discussion may need to reframe a patient's expectations about clinical accountability for irreversible interventions.