Minimally invasive versus open ileal ureter with ileocystoplasty: comparative outcomes and 5-year experience

PurposeTo present the experience of ileal ureter with ileocystoplasty (IUC), and compare the outcomes of IUC in minimally invasive procedures to open procedures.Patients and methodsFrom December 2017 to April 2023, twenty patients underwent IUC in open or minimally invasive (including laparoscopic and robotic) procedures. The baseline characteristics, perioperative data and follow-up outcomes were collected. Success was defined as relief of clinical symptoms, stable postoperative serum creatine and absence of radiographic obstruction. The perioperative and follow-up outcomes of open procedures and minimally invasive procedures were compared.ResultsThe etiology included pelvic irradiation (14/20), urinary tuberculosis (3/20) and surgical injury (3/20). Bilateral ureter strictures were repaired in 15 cases. The surgeries conducted consisted of open procedures in 9 patients and minimally invasive procedures in 11 patients. Compared to open procedures, minimally invasive surgeries had less median estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml vs. 300 min, p = 0.010) and shorter postoperative hospitalization (27 d vs. 13 d, p = 0.004). Two patients in the open group experienced grade 3 complications (sigmoid fistula and acute cholecystitis in one patient, and pulmonary embolism in another patient). Over a median follow-up period of 20.1 months, the median bladder functional capacity was 300 ml, with a 100% success rate of IUC.ConclusionIUC is feasible in both open and minimally invasive procedures, with acceptable complications and a high success rate. Minimally invasive procedures can have less EBL and shorter postoperative hospitalization than open procedure. However, prospective studies with larger groups and longer follow-up are needed.