| Literature DB >> 36010182 |
Cristian Surcel1,2, Cristian Mirvald1,2, Robert Stoica1,2, Vasile Cerempei1, Isabel Heidegger3, Apostolos Labanaris4, Igor Tsaur5, Catalin Baston1,2, Ioanel Sinescu1,2.
Abstract
Introduction: Uretero-arterial fistula (UAF) represents a rare condition that manifests as massive or intermittent hematuria and requires collaboration between a urologist, vascular surgeon and interventional radiologist. In this article, we present our experience with UAF diagnosis, treatment pathways and the results of a nonsystematic review of the literature published in the last decade regarding modern diagnostic procedures. Material and method: We analyzed the clinical data of nine consecutive patients from our institution diagnosed with UAF in the interval of 2012-2022 who underwent open or endovascular surgical treatment. We reviewed patient characteristics, diagnoses and treatment pathways. The literature search resulted in 14 case series, published from 2012 to 2022, describing a total of 670 cases of UAF.Entities:
Keywords: arteriography; computed tomography; diagnostic; uretero–arterial fistula; urinary diversion
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010182 PMCID: PMC9406295 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12081832
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Demographic data of patients from our cohort (UTI—urinary tract infection, EBRT—external beam radiotherapy, UAF—uretero–arterial fistula).
| Mean Age (Yrs, IQR) | 65.3 (51–79) |
|---|---|
| Sex | No, % |
| Male | 2 (22.22) |
| Female | 7 (77.77) |
| Presence of infection | |
| No | 1 (11.11) |
| Multidrug resistant UTI | 6 (66.66) |
| Permanent ureteric stenting | 9 (100) |
| Mean time of permanent stenting to UAF (months, inverval) | 26.8 (8–42.1) |
| Type of surgery for pelvic cancer | |
| Cervical cancer | |
| Hysterectomy | 1 (11.11) |
| Anterior exenteration with cutaneus ureterostomy | 6 (66.66) |
| Bladder cancer | |
| Cystectomy with ileal conduit | 1 (11.11) |
| Colorectal cancer | |
| Total exenteration with ileal conduit | 1 (11.11) |
| Urinay diversion | |
| Cutaneus urinary diversion | 6 (66.66) |
| Ileal conduit | 2 (22.22) |
| Radiotherapy | |
| EBRT only | 2 (22.22) |
| EBRT + brachytherapy | 7 (77.77) |
| Median time from radiotherapy to UAF (months) | 34.6 (11–54.7) |
| Clinical symptoms | |
| Hematuria | 9 (100) |
| Flank pain | 6 (66.66) |
| Hypovolemic shock | 3 (33.33) |
| Mean Hemoglobin at diagnostic (mg/dL, interval) | 7.24 (5.1, 10.8) |
| Mean serum creatinine at diagnostic (mg/dL, interval) | 1.4 (0.6, 2.4) |
Figure 1Arteriographic aspect of complex fistula between left ureter, left external iliac artery and descending colon.
Pretreatment diagnostic imaging sensitivity and location of UAF fistula (CT—computed tomography, CIA—common iliac artery, EIA—external iliac artery, UAF—uretero–arterial fistula).
| Diagnostic Imaging Procedures | No, % |
|---|---|
| CT scan | 5/9 (55.55) |
| Angiography | 5/7 (71.42) |
| Retrograde pyelography | 1/9 (11.11) |
|
| |
| Left ureter–left CIA | 6/9 (66.66) |
| Left ureter–abdominal aorta | 1/9 (11.11) |
| Left ureter–EIA–descending colon | 1/9 (11.11) |
| Right ureter–right CIA | 1/9 (11.11) |
| Metacronous UAF | 1/9 (11.11) |
Figure 2Arteriographic aspect after stent graft stenting of left CIA.
Pretreatment diagnostic imaging, treatment options and outcomes of patients in our cohort (CT—computed tomography; Angio—Angiography; CIA—common iliac artery; FFC—femorofemoral crossover bypass).
| Pretreatment Diagnostic Imaging | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | CT | Angio | Other | Type of Urinary Diversion | UAF Location | Arterial Treatment | Ureteral Treatment | Additional Procedures | Follow-Up (Months) | Status | |
| 1 | 2012 | Negative | Positive | USC | Left ureter- left CIA | Endovascular stent | Nephrostomy | endovascular restenting | 7 | Dead | |
| 2 | 2013 | Negative | N/A | USC | Left ureter- Aorta | Aortic patch | Nephroureterectomy | 1 | Dead | ||
| 3 | 2015 | Positive | Positive | USC | Left ureter- left EIA+ colon | EIA ligation and FFC | ureter ligation +Nephrostomy | Left colectomy | 78 | Dead | |
| 4 | 2016 | Positive | Positive | USC | Left ureter- left CIA | CIA ligation and FFC | ureter ligation +Nephrostomy | 64 | Alive | ||
| 5 | 2018 | Positive | Negative | USC | Left ureter- left CIA | Endovascular stent | Nephrostomy | Nephrectomy | 32 | Alive | |
| 6 | 2019 | Negative | N/A | UPR | None | Left ureter- left CIA | Patch angioplasty | Nephroureterectomy | 27 | Alive | |
| 7 | 2020 | Positive | Negative | Bricker | Left ureter- left CIA | Endovascular stent | Nephrostomy | endovascular restenting | |||
| 2021 | Negative | Negative | Right ureter- right CIA | Endovascular stent | Nephrostomy | Ureter ligation +CIA ligation and FFC | 4 | Dead | |||
| 8 | 2021 | Negative | Positive | Bricker | Left ureter- left CIA | Endovascular stent | Nephrostomy | 10 | Alive | ||
| 9 | 2021 | Positive | Positive | USC | Left ureter- left CIA | Endovascular stent | Nephrostomy | 8 | Alive | ||
Diagnostic test sensitivity of different imaging procedures used for diagnosis of UAF (pts—patients, CT—computed tomography, angio—angiography, URS—ureteroscopy).
| Article, Year | No of Pts | Cystoscopy | CT | Angio | Pyelography | URS | Open Surgery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malgor, 2012 [ | 20 | 11/14 | 3/8 | 12/14 | |||
| Okada, 2013 [ | 11 | 6/11 | 6/11 | ||||
| Hong, 2016 [ | 6 | 4/6 | 1/6 | 1/6 | |||
| Schneider, 2016 [ | 5 | 2/4 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 1/5 | ||
| Das, 2016 [ | 61 | 26/34 | 13/36 | 55/76 | 16/24 | 42/45 | |
| Heers, 2018 [ | 24 | 5/14 | 9/23 | ||||
| Titomihelakis,2019 [ | 5 | 1/5 | 5/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 | ||
| Massmann, 2020 [ | 5 | 1/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | |||
| Simon, 2021 [ | 17 | 2/10 | 3/17 | ||||
| Omran, 2021 [ | 25 | 17/25 | 7/23 | 4/21 | |||
| Ghouti, 2021 [ | 6 | 2/5 | 2/5 | ||||
| Matsunaga, 2021 [ | 40 | 3/13 | 15/27 | 4/11 | 1/6 | 4/4 | |
| Kamphorst, 2022 [ | 445 | 40/142 | 68/141 | 169/272 | 60/118 | 40/142 | |
| Our study, 2022 | 9 | 1/9 | 5/9 | 5/7 | 1/9 | ||
| Overall sensitivity | 679 | 97/239 | 134/285 (47.01%) | 292/488 (59.83%) | 85/178 (47.75%) | 43/153 (28.1%) | 48/60 (80%) |
Figure 3(Right) common iliac artery ligation with femoral-to-femoral artery extra-anatomic vascular reconstruction after failure of endovascular treatment—Angio CT aspect ((left): maximum intensity projection reconstruction describing the absence of contrast media in the right common iliac artery after ligation following failure of endovascular approach; right: axial section of a femoral-to-femoral artery extra-anatomic vascular reconstruction).