Hybrid technique has lower stricture rates than Wallace and Bricker

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Osman Can , Eyyüp Danış , Eren Görkem Kutlutürk , Emre Can Polat , Alper Ötünçtemur
{"title":"Hybrid technique has lower stricture rates than Wallace and Bricker","authors":"Osman Can ,&nbsp;Eyyüp Danış ,&nbsp;Eren Görkem Kutlutürk ,&nbsp;Emre Can Polat ,&nbsp;Alper Ötünçtemur","doi":"10.1016/j.suronc.2024.102036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p><span>A clear consensus has not yet been reached on the optimal ureteroenteric anastomosis<span> technique for ileal conduit urinary diversion following </span></span>radical cystectomy. This study aims to determine the incidence of strictures and their management associated with these anastomosis techniques.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of patients who underwent radical cystectomy and urinary diversion between March 2014 and August 2022. Patients were categorized based on the ureteroenteric anastomosis technique used: Wallace, Bricker, or Hybrid. Strictures were identified through antegrade </span>pyelography<span> following nephrostomy placement.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 141 patients were included in the study, with 60 patients in the Wallace group (42 %), 42 patients in the Bricker group (30 %), and 39 patients in the Hybrid group (28 %). The overall incidence of ureteroenteric strictures was 15 %, with 7 patients in the Wallace group, 11 patients in the Bricker group, and 3 patients in the Hybrid group experiencing strictures. There was no statistically significant difference in stricture rates between the Wallace and Bricker groups (11 % vs. 26 %, p = 0.09) or between the Wallace and Hybrid groups (11 % vs. 7 %, p = 0.73). However, a statistically significant difference was observed between the Bricker and Hybrid groups (26 % vs. 7 %, p = 0.03). The mean time to stricture development was 9.2 ± 3.3 months for the Wallace group, 9.5 ± 3.7 months for the Bricker group, and 12.6 ± 5 months for the Hybrid group (p = 0.407).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The Hybrid ureteroenteric anastomosis technique exhibits a lower stricture rate compared to the Bricker and Wallace techniques. It represents a safe and feasible alternative technique.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51185,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Oncology-Oxford","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960740424000045","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

A clear consensus has not yet been reached on the optimal ureteroenteric anastomosis technique for ileal conduit urinary diversion following radical cystectomy. This study aims to determine the incidence of strictures and their management associated with these anastomosis techniques.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, single-center study of patients who underwent radical cystectomy and urinary diversion between March 2014 and August 2022. Patients were categorized based on the ureteroenteric anastomosis technique used: Wallace, Bricker, or Hybrid. Strictures were identified through antegrade pyelography following nephrostomy placement.

Results

A total of 141 patients were included in the study, with 60 patients in the Wallace group (42 %), 42 patients in the Bricker group (30 %), and 39 patients in the Hybrid group (28 %). The overall incidence of ureteroenteric strictures was 15 %, with 7 patients in the Wallace group, 11 patients in the Bricker group, and 3 patients in the Hybrid group experiencing strictures. There was no statistically significant difference in stricture rates between the Wallace and Bricker groups (11 % vs. 26 %, p = 0.09) or between the Wallace and Hybrid groups (11 % vs. 7 %, p = 0.73). However, a statistically significant difference was observed between the Bricker and Hybrid groups (26 % vs. 7 %, p = 0.03). The mean time to stricture development was 9.2 ± 3.3 months for the Wallace group, 9.5 ± 3.7 months for the Bricker group, and 12.6 ± 5 months for the Hybrid group (p = 0.407).

Conclusion

The Hybrid ureteroenteric anastomosis technique exhibits a lower stricture rate compared to the Bricker and Wallace techniques. It represents a safe and feasible alternative technique.

混合技术的狭窄率低于华莱士和布里克技术
引言 关于根治性膀胱切除术后回肠导尿分流的最佳输尿管肠吻合技术,目前尚未达成明确共识。方法 我们对 2014 年 3 月至 2022 年 8 月间接受根治性膀胱切除术和尿流改道的患者进行了一项回顾性单中心研究。根据所使用的输尿管肠管吻合技术对患者进行分类:华莱士技术、布里克技术或混合技术。研究共纳入 141 例患者,其中 Wallace 组 60 例(42%),Bricker 组 42 例(30%),混合组 39 例(28%)。输尿管肠管狭窄的总发生率为 15%,其中华莱士组有 7 名患者、布里克组有 11 名患者、混合组有 3 名患者出现狭窄。华莱士组和布里克组(11% 对 26%,P = 0.09)以及华莱士组和混合组(11% 对 7%,P = 0.73)之间的狭窄率差异无统计学意义。不过,布里克组和混合组之间的差异具有统计学意义(26% 对 7%,p = 0.03)。Wallace 组发生狭窄的平均时间为 9.2 ± 3.3 个月,Bricker 组为 9.5 ± 3.7 个月,Hybrid 组为 12.6 ± 5 个月(p = 0.407)。它是一种安全可行的替代技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Surgical Oncology-Oxford
Surgical Oncology-Oxford 医学-外科
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
169
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Surgical Oncology is a peer reviewed journal publishing review articles that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in surgical oncology and related fields of interest. Articles represent a spectrum of current technology in oncology research as well as those concerning clinical trials, surgical technique, methods of investigation and patient evaluation. Surgical Oncology publishes comprehensive Reviews that examine individual topics in considerable detail, in addition to editorials and commentaries which focus on selected papers. The journal also publishes special issues which explore topics of interest to surgical oncologists in great detail - outlining recent advancements and providing readers with the most up to date information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信