INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To analyse the postoperative results of surgical treatment for retrocaval ureter. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The authors report a retrospective clinical study of a series of 16 patients (six women and 10 men) with a mean age of 38 years (range: 15-45 years) with retrocaval ureter treated between 1975 and 2005. The mean follow-up was 18 months (range: 12 to 34 months). All patients were evaluated by the standard diagnostic protocol for the time and were treated by one of the following surgical techniques: resection of the ureter and renal pelvis to renal pelvis anastomosis; resection of the ureter and pyelo-ureteric anastomosis; resection of the ureter and oblique end-to-end uretero-ureteric anastomosis; nephrectomy. RESULTS: The mean operating time was 95 min. Late postoperative follow-up revealed two cases (13%) of ureteric stenosis at the site of the oblique end-to-end uretero-ureteric anastomosis. Surgical revision was performed in one patient with resection of the ureter and reanastomosis, while anterograde dilatation of the stenosis was performed in the other patient. The postoperative course was uneventful in both patients. All patients were reviewed at six months with a satisfactory result, corresponding to reduction of hydronephrosis and improvement of renal function. CONCLUSION: Over the last 30 years, the diagnosis of retrocaval ureter has become more reliable and less invasive. Satisfactory results can be obtained with conventional surgical management.
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To analyse the postoperative results of surgical treatment for retrocaval ureter. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The authors report a retrospective clinical study of a series of 16 patients (six women and 10 men) with a mean age of 38 years (range: 15-45 years) with retrocaval ureter treated between 1975 and 2005. The mean follow-up was 18 months (range: 12 to 34 months). All patients were evaluated by the standard diagnostic protocol for the time and were treated by one of the following surgical techniques: resection of the ureter and renal pelvis to renal pelvis anastomosis; resection of the ureter and pyelo-ureteric anastomosis; resection of the ureter and oblique end-to-end uretero-ureteric anastomosis; nephrectomy. RESULTS: The mean operating time was 95 min. Late postoperative follow-up revealed two cases (13%) of ureteric stenosis at the site of the oblique end-to-end uretero-ureteric anastomosis. Surgical revision was performed in one patient with resection of the ureter and reanastomosis, while anterograde dilatation of the stenosis was performed in the other patient. The postoperative course was uneventful in both patients. All patients were reviewed at six months with a satisfactory result, corresponding to reduction of hydronephrosis and improvement of renal function. CONCLUSION: Over the last 30 years, the diagnosis of retrocaval ureter has become more reliable and less invasive. Satisfactory results can be obtained with conventional surgical management.