A Abu-Zaid1,2,3, H Abou Al-Shaar3, A Azzam2,4, O AlOmar1, M F Al-Otaibi5, T Amin2, I A Al-Badawi6,7. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MBC-52, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, PO Box 3354, Riyadh, 11211, Saudi Arabia. 2. King Faisal Oncology Centre, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3. College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4. Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt. 5. Department of Urology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MBC-52, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, PO Box 3354, Riyadh, 11211, Saudi Arabia. i_albadawi@yahoo.com. 7. College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. i_albadawi@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic ureteric injury is a rare, yet serious operative complication in gynecologic procedures and associated with substantial morbidities such as prolonged hospitalization, additional financial-based ureter-related repairing procedures, impaired renal function, and compromised quality of life. Direct visual identification of ureters can be very challenging in managing patients with primary advanced or recurrent disseminated intraperitoneal gynecologic malignancies, who are referred to complex procedures such as cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). AIMS: To report our single-center experience (feasibility and morbidity) with prophylactic ureteric stents as a routine practice before CRS+HIPEC procedure in managing peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: From June-2010 to March-2014, all patients with gynecologic-related PC, managed with CRS+HIPEC, and underwent prophylactic ureteric stents. The data were retrospectively abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were identified. Almost all PC cases were secondary/recurrence presentations (90.6 %) and originated from ovarian cancer (84.9 %). Optimal cytoreduction microscopic residual disease) was achieved in 35 patients (60 %). Average insertion time of ureteric stents was 8.9 ± 3.3 min. Fifty-two patients (98.1 %) received bilateral ureteric stents. Forty-nine patients (92.5 %) had their ureteric stents removed by the end of procedure. No patient experienced major peri-operative urinary tract-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic ureteric stents appeared to be feasible, potentially safe, and could reduce the risk of iatrogenic ureteric injuries without incurring an increase in urinary tract-related complications. Prophylactic ureteric stenting does not eliminate the necessity for competent anatomical knowledge, meticulous retroperitoneal dissection and direct intra-operative visualization of ureters.
BACKGROUND:Iatrogenic ureteric injury is a rare, yet serious operative complication in gynecologic procedures and associated with substantial morbidities such as prolonged hospitalization, additional financial-based ureter-related repairing procedures, impaired renal function, and compromised quality of life. Direct visual identification of ureters can be very challenging in managing patients with primary advanced or recurrent disseminated intraperitoneal gynecologic malignancies, who are referred to complex procedures such as cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). AIMS: To report our single-center experience (feasibility and morbidity) with prophylactic ureteric stents as a routine practice before CRS+HIPEC procedure in managing peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) from gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: From June-2010 to March-2014, all patients with gynecologic-related PC, managed with CRS+HIPEC, and underwent prophylactic ureteric stents. The data were retrospectively abstracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were identified. Almost all PC cases were secondary/recurrence presentations (90.6 %) and originated from ovarian cancer (84.9 %). Optimal cytoreduction microscopic residual disease) was achieved in 35 patients (60 %). Average insertion time of ureteric stents was 8.9 ± 3.3 min. Fifty-two patients (98.1 %) received bilateral ureteric stents. Forty-nine patients (92.5 %) had their ureteric stents removed by the end of procedure. No patient experienced major peri-operative urinary tract-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic ureteric stents appeared to be feasible, potentially safe, and could reduce the risk of iatrogenic ureteric injuries without incurring an increase in urinary tract-related complications. Prophylactic ureteric stenting does not eliminate the necessity for competent anatomical knowledge, meticulous retroperitoneal dissection and direct intra-operative visualization of ureters.
Authors: Federico Coccolini; Marco Lotti; Roberto Manfredi; Fausto Catena; Carlo Vallicelli; Pier Andrea De Iaco; Luigi Da Pozzo; Luigi Frigerio; Luca Ansaloni Journal: Urol Int Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Carlo De Cicco; Maria Lorena Ret Dávalos; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel; Jasper Verguts; Philippe Robert Koninckx Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2007 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Ahmed Abu-Zaid; Ayman Zaki Azzam; Osama AlOmar; Hany Salem; Tarek Amin; Ismail A Al-Badawi Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.526