Journal of pediatric urology · 2018
Robotic excision and ureteroureterostomy of blind-ending ureteral 'Duplication'.
Клинический случайСтатьяVideo-Audio MediaНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Satyanarayan A, Preuss D, Davis T D, Peters C A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Duplicated ureteral anatomy can be a reconstructive challenge. Blind-ending ureteral duplication has been reported with recommendations for surgical excision.
OBJECTIVE: This video reviews the importance of exposure of anatomic landmarks in surgical excision of a blind-ending ureteral duplication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective case report of a patient who presented with a blind-ending ureteral duplication.
DISCUSSION: A 13-year-old female presented with a right-sided abdominal mass. Abdominal and pelvic imaging revealed a tubular structure adjacent to and below the right kidney, possibly connecting to the right lower pole. While initially observed, the patient re-presented with urosepsis. A retrograde pyelogram showed no connection between the right ureter and this structure. The patient underwent robotic-assisted excision of this structure. Intra-operatively, it was connected to the right lower pole calyces. A ureteroureterostomy to the orthotopic ureter was performed. Although the structure was adjacent to the bladder dome, there was no communication distally. Postoperatively, the patient did well; follow-up imaging showed a non-dilated lower pole. The pathology of this structure was benign urothelium.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management of aberrant ureteral duplications should focus on identifying known landmarks and should be considered to prevent symptomatic infections and renal scarring.
OBJECTIVE: This video reviews the importance of exposure of anatomic landmarks in surgical excision of a blind-ending ureteral duplication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective case report of a patient who presented with a blind-ending ureteral duplication.
DISCUSSION: A 13-year-old female presented with a right-sided abdominal mass. Abdominal and pelvic imaging revealed a tubular structure adjacent to and below the right kidney, possibly connecting to the right lower pole. While initially observed, the patient re-presented with urosepsis. A retrograde pyelogram showed no connection between the right ureter and this structure. The patient underwent robotic-assisted excision of this structure. Intra-operatively, it was connected to the right lower pole calyces. A ureteroureterostomy to the orthotopic ureter was performed. Although the structure was adjacent to the bladder dome, there was no communication distally. Postoperatively, the patient did well; follow-up imaging showed a non-dilated lower pole. The pathology of this structure was benign urothelium.
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical management of aberrant ureteral duplications should focus on identifying known landmarks and should be considered to prevent symptomatic infections and renal scarring.