BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic ureteral injury is a rare complication in colorectal surgery. We aimed to investigate the risk of ureteral injury among patients with colorectal cancer operated on with curative intent in Denmark with laparoscopic and open technique. METHOD: The study was based on the Danish National Colorectal Cancer database (DCCG) and included patients treated with intended curative resection for colorectal cancer between 2005 and 2011. From the DCCG database, we extracted data on intraoperative urinary tract injuries. To identify urinary tract injuries not recognized at the time of surgery but within 30 days after surgery, we cross-linked data with the National Patient Registry. All ureteral injuries were confirmed by medical record review. Data were analyzed separately for colon and rectal cancer. 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.
BACKGROUND:Iatrogenic ureteral injury is a rare complication in colorectal surgery. We aimed to investigate the risk of ureteral injury among patients with colorectal cancer operated on with curative intent in Denmark with laparoscopic and open technique. METHOD: The study was based on the Danish National Colorectal Cancer database (DCCG) and included patients treated with intended curative resection for colorectal cancer between 2005 and 2011. From the DCCG database, we extracted data on intraoperative urinary tract injuries. To identify urinary tract injuries not recognized at the time of surgery but within 30 days after surgery, we cross-linked data with the National Patient Registry. All ureteral injuries were confirmed by medical record review. Data were analyzed separately for colon and rectal cancer. 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 cancerpatients. In rectum cancerpatients (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.
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Kourosh Afshar; Frank Papanikolaou; Roja Malek; Darius Bagli; Jao L Pippi-Salle; Antoine Khoury Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Theodoor E Nieboer; Neil Johnson; Anne Lethaby; Emma Tavender; Elizabeth Curr; Ray Garry; Sabine van Voorst; Ben Willem J Mol; Kirsten B Kluivers Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: John S Mayo; Miriam L Brazer; Kenneth J Bogenberger; Kelli B Tavares; Robert J Conrad; Michael B Lustik; Suzanne M Gillern; Chan W Park; Carly R Richards Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-06-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Stefanie M Croghan; Alexandra Zaborowski; Helen M Mohan; David Mulvin; Barry B McGuire; Michael Murphy; David J Galvin; Gerry Lennon; David Quinlan; Des C Winter Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: C Alcántara-Quispe; J M Xavier; S Atallah; L G C Romagnolo; A G F Melani; E Jorge; R L Muller; R D Machado; E F Faria Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Taryn E Hassinger; J Hunter Mehaffey; Matthew G Mullen; Alex D Michaels; Nathan R Elwood; Shoshana T Levi; Traci L Hedrick; Charles M Friel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 4.584