Skip to main content

Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Stricture Repair

Ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures (UAS) are one of the most consequential late complications of radical cystectomy with urinary diversion, occurring in 3%–25% of patients and leading to progressive hydronephrosis, renal functional loss, and — if unrecognized — end-stage renal disease.[1] Ischemia at the anastomotic margin is an important mechanism, influenced by tissue handling, perfusion, tension, leakage and other patient or operative factors; management therefore demands that any reconstructive effort restore a well-vascularized, tension-free mucosa-to-mucosa junction between healthy ureteral tissue and the bowel wall.[1][2]

Epidemiology and Etiology​

UAS develop at a cumulative rate of approximately 12% at 1 year, 16% at 3 years, and 19% at 5 years following robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC).[2] Left-sided strictures predominate (46%–68% of cases) and are more resistant to endoscopic treatment, possibly reflecting the greater tension required to route the left ureter beneath the sigmoid mesentery.[7][8]

Reported associations include higher BMI, prior chemotherapy or pelvic radiation, postoperative urinary tract infection, urine leak, preoperative hydronephrosis, poor nutritional status (low Nutritional Risk Index), and elevated ASA score.[2][3][4][5][6] One retrospective cohort associated index stenting with stricture (adjusted OR 2.27), with stentless surgery introduced later in the series. This does not prove that stents cause strictures or justify routinely omitting drainage.[4] A retrospective study associated longer distal ureteral resection with fewer strictures. The operative goal is to reach viable tissue without anastomotic tension, not to maximize resection length.[9]

Preoperative Evaluation​

  • Imaging: CT urography, MAG3 renography, retrograde pyelogram, or antegrade nephrostogram — the combination depends on diversion type and accessibility.[1]
  • Malignancy assessment: Review the original cancer pathology and surveillance imaging. Obtain endoscopic biopsy or surgical tissue assessment when recurrence is suspected or diagnosis remains uncertain; frozen-section use depends on that concern and the operative plan.[10]
  • Renal function: Assess global and differential function, drainage, symptoms and recoverability. Low split function alone is not an automatic indication for nephrectomy.
  • Ureteral rest: Many centers advocate 4 weeks of nephrostomy tube drainage prior to definitive repair to allow periureteral inflammation to subside before attempting revision.[8]

Endourological Approaches​

Endoscopic management is reasonable first-line therapy for short strictures (≤ 2 cm), patients who are poor surgical candidates, or as a bridge before surgical revision. Long-term patency is inferior to surgical repair — a 27-year single-institution comparative study demonstrated patency rates of 27% for endourological treatment versus 69% for open revision at 60 months (median patency 5 vs. 15.5 months, p = 0.003), though endourological approaches had substantially shorter hospital stays (2 vs. 14 days) and fewer complications.[11]

Balloon Dilation​

The most accessible endoscopic option. The commonly cited Lu 2019 analysis included 19 case series of benign ureteral strictures, not 33 studies specific to ureteroenteric disease; its 54% 6–12-month estimate should not be assigned to UAS.[12] A separate UAS-specific review of 18 retrospective studies and 697 patients reported pooled endoscopic success of 46%, with 35% in balloon-dilation cohorts and better results for strictures ≤1 cm. Heterogeneous single-arm data do not prove one endoscopic technique superior. Balloon dimensions, stenting and duration are individualized.[35]

Holmium:YAG Laser Endoureterotomy​

The Ho:YAG laser allows precise full-thickness incision with simultaneous hemostasis via antegrade percutaneous or retrograde approach through the bowel loop.[13] Success rates range from 50%–80%; longer and ischemic strictures fail at higher rates. Stricture length and etiology are the dominant determinants of outcome.[13][7]

Laser Incision with Triamcinolone Injection​

A single uncontrolled series of 21 patients and 24 strictures reported success in 20/24 strictures (83.3%) at median 30-month follow-up. Its protocol was:[14]

  1. Antegrade flexible ureteroscopy with biopsy
  2. Laser incision of the stricture and periureteral / peri-ileal tissues 1 cm proximal and 1 cm distal into fat
  3. Triamcinolone injection into the incised tissue planes
  4. Balloon dilation to 24 Fr
  5. Parallel Double-J stents or upside-down nephrostomy tubes for 6 weeks

Triamcinolone was an off-label component of a combined protocol; the study cannot isolate its benefit or establish routine steroid injection. Recurrences in this series appeared within 3 months, but other cohorts report later failures, so surveillance must continue.

Endoureterotomy by Intraluminal Invagination (Lovaco Technique)​

A combined percutaneous antegrade and endoscopic retrograde approach that allows direct visualization and full-thickness incision of the strictured segment. Intraluminal invagination creates distance between the stricture and retroperitoneal vessels or bowel, improving safety. Reported success was 80% at a median follow-up of 51 months in 25 patients.[15]

Cold-Knife Percutaneous Antegrade Incision​

A wire-mounted cold knife is pulled retrogradely through the stricture under fluoroscopic control via nephrostomy access, followed by stenting for 6–8 weeks. Primary success approximately 74%; failures are associated with radiogenic ureteral injury.[16]

Allium Metallic Stent​

After laser endoureterotomy and balloon dilation, a self-expanding Allium ureteral stent provides extended scaffolding across the strictured segment. Gao et al. reported 23/25 success (92%) at median 12 months in a mixed ureteric-stricture cohort. This is not a UAS-specific result or proof of cure after metal-stent removal.[29]

Predictors of Endoscopic Failure​

  • Stricture length >1 cm — strictures <1 cm respond significantly better.[1][6][20]
  • Left-sided strictures — significantly more resistant to endoscopic management (~50% vs 85% success for right-sided).[7]
  • Male sex and higher BMI — lower odds of successful endoscopic management.[2]

At 60 months, patency after endoscopic treatment is only 27% versus 69% after open revision (p = 0.003).[11]

Surgical Revision​

Open Revision​

Open ureteroenteric reimplantation achieves success rates of 80%–91% and remains the historical reference standard.[1][7][10] Core steps:

  1. Mobilization and identification of the ureter above the anastomosis
  2. Excision of the strictured segment and periureteral fibrotic tissue back to bleeding, healthy ureter
  3. Spatulation of the healthy ureteral end
  4. Reimplantation into the bowel segment using Nesbit (end-to-side, refluxing) or Wallace (bilateral conjoined, refluxing) anastomosis
  5. Double-J stent placement across the new anastomosis

A retroperitoneal approach via low lombotomy incision has been described for isolated right-sided UAS, with mean operative time of approximately 50 minutes and no perioperative complications, avoiding the morbidity of transperitoneal re-entry into a previously operated field.[20]

Robot-Assisted Repair​

Robotic revision is an option in experienced centers. A retrospective multicenter comparison of 82 repairs (65 robotic, 17 open, with all open procedures from one center) reported stricture-free rates of 80% vs 90% (p = 0.42), overall complications of 37% vs 70.6%, and median stay of 3 vs 6 days. Differences in selection, center and operative era limit inference; a nonsignificant difference does not establish equivalent patency.[23]

Technical steps for robotic revision:[21][10][22]

  1. Patient positioning: 30° Trendelenburg; port placement mirrors robotic prostatectomy configuration
  2. Access: Supraumbilical Hasson mini-laparotomy for pneumoperitoneum
  3. Adhesiolysis: Careful dissection around the bowel diversion, respecting mesenteric vasculature
  4. ICG-guided localization: Intraluminal ICG through a nephrostomy can outline ureteral anatomy. It does not assess perfusion; intravenous ICG is used for fluorescence angiography. See the ICG hub for route-specific use and safety
  5. Ureteral mobilization and stricture excision: Complete resection back to healthy, perfused tissue
  6. Pathology: Send excised tissue for histology; use frozen section when the malignancy assessment or operative decision requires it
  7. Spatulation and reimplantation: Construct a tension-free mucosa-to-mucosa anastomosis over a stent. Anastomotic configuration and absorbable suture technique depend on anatomy and surgeon experience; a specific barbed product is not mandatory

For the Sarychev / Klein technique, the anastomosis is completed intracorporeally using the same V-lock barbed running suture used in primary diversion, with real-time ICG verification of ureteral perfusion before completing the repair.[10]

Advanced Reconstruction for Complex Cases​

When ureteral length is insufficient for primary reimplantation after adequate stricture excision, choose among the following adjuncts according to anatomy, perfusion and the existing diversion:

AdjunctIndicationNotes
Boari-like bowel advancement flapInsufficient ureteral length after excisionUsed in ~15% of robotic and ~27% of open cases; a flap from the bowel segment bridges the gap without requiring additional tissue harvest.[8][22]
Downward nephropexyPan-ureteral tensionMobilization and inferior fixation of the ipsilateral kidney gains 3–5 cm of additional reach.[26]
Ileal interposition / bypassPan-ureteral loss or hostile ureteral bedA new ileal segment is anastomosed from the proximal healthy ureter to the conduit or neobladder; robotic ileal bypass series report 100% technical success in small cohorts.[24]
Buccal mucosal graft ureteroplastyLong stricture with adequate remaining ureteral plateOnlay augmentation avoids bowel harvest; outcomes appear comparable to BMG for primary ureteral reconstruction in early series.[25]

Anastomotic Technique Considerations for Prevention​

These principles apply to initial ureteroenteric construction and inform decisions during revision:

VariableRecommendationEvidence
Suture techniqueUse a meticulous, well-perfused, tension-free anastomosisA sequential-era observational study associated running sutures with stricture (adjusted HR 1.9, p = 0.05); this does not prove interrupted sutures superior. Surgeon and technique effects may be intertwined.[17][27]
Bricker vs. WallaceBoth acceptable; Wallace lower per-anastomosis stricture in some seriesBricker 3.6%–5.9% vs. Wallace 0%–3.7% per unit; 69% of Wallace strictures are bilateral (vs predominantly unilateral with Bricker).[18][19]
Hybrid Bricker / WallaceReasonable alternative when bilateral conjoined risk is unwantedCombines elements of both — stricture rate 7% vs 26% (Bricker) in one comparative study (p = 0.03).[30]
Refluxing vs. antirefluxBalance reflux protection against obstruction riskA sequential cohort reported 10-year rates of 14.2% for Le Duc vs 2.4% for Wallace in previously undilated ureters; these subgroup percentages are not a threefold ratio or a randomized comparison.[5]
Ureteral lengthResect nonviable tissue while preserving tension-free reachLonger distal resections were associated with fewer strictures in a retrospective cohort; causal benefit from extra resection was not established.[9]
Perioperative stentingPlan drainage individuallyThe OR 2.27 association comes from a retrospective cohort with an era change in stent practice; it is not evidence to routinely withhold stents.[4]

Prevention With ICG Fluorescence Angiography​

Intravenous ICG fluorescence can supplement perfusion assessment before anastomosis. Observational studies suggest fewer strictures, but shorter follow-up in ICG groups and historical controls limit causal interpretation.

SeriesSettingUAS rate (ICG)UAS rate (no ICG)p
Yeaman 2024 (SPY)Open UD; historical controls; median follow-up 17.5 vs 58.6 months1/55 patients (1.8%)31/277 patients (11.1%)0.03[31]
Doshi 2020Open RC; retrospective; median follow-up 15.8 vs 23.2 months1/31 patients (3.2%)5/30 patients (16.7%)—[32]
Ahmadi 2019RARC + ICUD; retrospective; median follow-up 12 vs 14 months0/47 patients14/132 patients (10.6%)0.020[33]
Hebert 202439 patients, 40 mixed open reconstructions; no control group1/57 anastomoses (1.8%)——[34]

In the Hebert cohort, ICG changed intraoperative decision-making in 63% of cases and was associated with significantly longer ureteral resection (3.6 cm vs 1.8 cm under white light, p = 0.001), reflecting changed resection decisions after fluorescence assessment. Discordance between subjective (white-light) and objective (ICG) perfusion assessment occurred in 61% of ureters ; this demonstrates discordance, not a validated universal fluorescence threshold for tissue viability.[34]

Postoperative Surveillance​

One endoscopic series used CT at 3 months and 1 year and ultrasound at 6 and 9 months, then annually. This is a study protocol, not a universal schedule for every surgical or endoscopic repair.[14] Arrange early imaging after stent removal and continued follow-up based on renal function, symptoms, diversion and prior radiation; asymptomatic recurrent obstruction may occur later. Late recurrences after surgical repair necessitate long-term follow-up given the risk of silent contralateral development.[28]

Decision Framework​

  1. Confirm obstruction, secure drainage when clinically needed, and investigate possible malignant recurrence.
  2. Assess stricture length, completeness, perfusion, renal recoverability, diversion anatomy and operative fitness.
  3. Offer a selected endoscopic attempt for favorable short strictures or patients who need a less invasive approach, explaining limited durability. Steroid injection is not a required component.[14][35]
  4. For recurrence or unfavorable anatomy, consider open or robotic revision with viable tissue and tension-free reach. Choose grafts, bowel advancement or substitution according to the actual defect; no single access route has proven equivalent or superior outcomes for all patients.[8][22][23]
  5. Continue renal and drainage surveillance after either approach.

Videos​

Robotic Repair of a Uretero-Neobladder Anastomotic Stricture
AUA Urology Teaching Videos (2019)

References​

1. Lobo N, Dupré S, Sahai A, Thurairaja R, Khan MS. Getting Out of a Tight Spot: An Overview of Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Strictures. Nat Rev Urol. 2016;13(8):447–55. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2016.104

2. Ahmed YE, Hussein AA, May PR, et al. Natural History, Predictors and Management of Ureteroenteric Strictures After Robot Assisted Radical Cystectomy. J Urol. 2017;198(3):567–574. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.3339

3. Citgez S, Bulbul E, Ozden SB, et al. Benign Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Stricture Predictors in Radical Cystectomy Patients: A Critical Analysis Focusing on the Nutritional Risk Index and Postoperative Urinary Tract Infection. Urol Oncol. 2025;S1078-1439(25)00271-6. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.07.011

4. Ramahi YO, Shiekh M, Shah AA, et al. Uretero-Enteric Strictures After Robot Assisted Radical Cystectomy: Prevalence and Management Over Two Decades. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2023;21(2):e19–e26. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2022.10.006

5. Hautmann RE, de Petriconi R, Kahlmeyer A, Enders M, Volkmer B. Preoperatively Dilated Ureters Are a Specific Risk Factor for the Development of Ureteroenteric Strictures After Open Radical Cystectomy and Ileal Neobladder. J Urol. 2017;198(5):1098–1106. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.069

6. Amin KA, Vertosick EA, Stearns G, et al. Predictors of Benign Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Strictures After Radical Cystectomy and Urinary Diversion. Urology. 2020;144:225–229. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.024

7. Laven BA, O'Connor RC, Gerber GS, Steinberg GD. Long-Term Results of Endoureterotomy and Open Surgical Revision for the Management of Ureteroenteric Strictures After Urinary Diversion. J Urol. 2003;170(4 Pt 1):1226–30. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000086701.68756.8f

8. Bearrick EN, Findlay BL, Fadel A, et al. Open and Robotic Uretero-Enteric Stricture Repair: Early Outcomes and Complications. J Endourol. 2024;38(10):1021–1026. doi:10.1089/end.2024.0021

9. Das A, Zeng E, Risk M, et al. Shorter Ureters Lead to Fewer Strictures Following Cystectomy and Urinary Diversion. Urology. 2024;184:272–277. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.12.005

10. Sarychev S, Klein J. Robotic Ureter Reimplantation After Urinary Diversion. Urology. 2024;189:e10–e11. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2024.02.043

11. van Son MJ, Lock MTWT, Peters M, van de Putte EEF, Meijer RP. Treating Benign Ureteroenteric Strictures: 27-Year Experience Comparing Endourological Techniques With Open Surgical Approach. World J Urol. 2019;37(6):1217–1223. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2475-4

12. Lu C, Zhang W, Peng Y, et al. Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation in the Treatment of Benign Ureteral Strictures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. J Endourol. 2019;33(4):255–262. doi:10.1089/end.2018.0797

13. Singal RK, Denstedt JD, Razvi HA, Chun SS. Holmium:YAG Laser Endoureterotomy for Treatment of Ureteral Stricture. Urology. 1997;50(6):875–80. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(97)00511-6

14. Katims AB, Edelblute BT, Tam AW, et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Laser Incision and Triamcinolone Injection for the Management of Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Strictures. J Endourol. 2021;35(1):21–24. doi:10.1089/end.2020.0593

15. Lovaco F, Serrano A, Fernández I, Pérez P, González-Peramato P. Endoureterotomy by Intraluminal Invagination for Nonmalignant Ureterointestinal Anastomotic Strictures. J Urol. 2005;174(5):1851–6. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000176807.96225.1d

16. Poulakis V, Witzsch U, de Vries R, Becht E. Antegrade Percutaneous Endoluminal Treatment of Non-Malignant Ureterointestinal Anastomotic Strictures Following Urinary Diversion. Eur Urol. 2001;39(3):308–15. doi:10.1159/000052459

17. Roth S, van Ahlen H, Semjonow A, Oberpenning F, Hertle L. Does the Success of Ureterointestinal Implantation in Orthotopic Bladder Substitution Depend More on Surgeon Level of Experience or Choice of Technique? J Urol. 1997;157(1):56–60.

18. Krafft U, Mahmoud O, Hess J, et al. Comparative Analysis of Bricker Versus Wallace Ureteroenteric Anastomosis and Identification of Predictors for Postoperative Ureteroenteric Stricture. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2022;407(3):1233–1240. doi:10.1007/s00423-021-02413-4

19. Kouba E, Sands M, Lentz A, Wallen E, Pruthi RS. A Comparison of the Bricker Versus Wallace Ureteroileal Anastomosis in Patients Undergoing Urinary Diversion for Bladder Cancer. J Urol. 2007;178(3 Pt 1):945–8. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.030

20. Kalemci S, Kizilay F, Simsir A. A New Technique in the Treatment of Ureteroenteric Anastomosis Stricture: Repair With Low Lombotomy Incision (Retroperitoneal Approach). Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(6):e14155. doi:10.1111/ijcp.14155

21. Rich JM, Tillu N, Grauer R, et al. Robot-Assisted Repair of Ureteroenteric Strictures After Cystectomy With Urinary Diversion: Technique Description and Outcomes From the European Robotic Urology Section Scientific Working Group. J Endourol. 2023;37(11):1209–1215. doi:10.1089/end.2023.0204

22. Ghodoussipour S, Ahmadi N, Goh A, et al. Robotic Repair of Ureteroenteric Stricture Following Radical Cystectomy: A Multi-Institutional Experience. Urology. 2022;161:125–130. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2021.11.020

23. Ajami T, Musquera M, Palou J, et al. A Multicenter Study of Perioperative and Functional Outcomes of Open vs. Robot Assisted Uretero-Enteric Reimplantation After Radical Cystectomy. World J Urol. 2025;43(1):74. doi:10.1007/s00345-024-05435-x

24. Li H, Mou Y, Liu Z, et al. Robotic Ureteroileal Bypass Repair for Post-Cystectomy Bricker Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Strictures: Stepwise Approach and Clinical Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2026;33(5):4850–4857. doi:10.1245/s10434-026-19224-w

25. Bello D, Van Shufflin M, Hofer MD. Expanding the Armamentarium: Perspectives on Buccal Mucosal Grafts and Appendiceal Flaps in Ureteral Reconstructive Surgery. J Clin Med. 2025;14(21):7681. doi:10.3390/jcm14217681

26. Mauck RJ, Hudak SJ, Terlecki RP, Morey AF. Central Role of Boari Bladder Flap and Downward Nephropexy in Upper Ureteral Reconstruction. J Urol. 2011;186(4):1345–9. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.086

27. Large MC, Cohn JA, Kiriluk KJ, et al. The Impact of Running Versus Interrupted Anastomosis on Ureterointestinal Stricture Rate After Radical Cystectomy. J Urol. 2013;190(3):923–7. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.091

28. Reus C, Brehmer M. Minimally Invasive Management of Ureteral Strictures: A 5-Year Retrospective Study. World J Urol. 2019;37(8):1733–1738. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2539-5

29. Gao X, Chen J, Wang W, et al. Step-by-step technique for the endoscopic treatment of ureteric stricture. BJU Int. 2021;128(6):692–696. doi:10.1111/bju.15558

30. Can O, Danış E, Kutlutürk EG, Polat EC, Ötünçtemur A. Hybrid technique has lower stricture rates than Wallace and Bricker. Surg Oncol. 2024;52:102036. doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2024.102036

31. Yeaman C, Ignozzi G, Kazeem A, et al. Impact of SPY fluorescence angiography on incidence of ureteroenteric stricture after urinary diversion. J Urol. 2024;212(6):844–850. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000004198

32. Doshi CP, Wozniak A, Quek ML. Near-infrared fluorescence imaging of ureters with intravenous indocyanine green during radical cystectomy to prevent ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures. Urology. 2020;144:220–224. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.06.026

33. Ahmadi N, Ashrafi AN, Hartman N, et al. Use of indocyanine green to minimise uretero-enteric strictures after robotic radical cystectomy. BJU Int. 2019;124(2):302–307. doi:10.1111/bju.14733

34. Hebert KJ, Bearrick E, Anderson KT, Viers BR. High rates of discordant ureteral perfusion during open ureteral reconstruction with indocyanine green: does near-infrared fluorescence imaging change management or stricture outcomes? Urology. 2024;190:117–122. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2024.04.055

35. Lu X, Wang Y, Chen Q, Xia D, Zhang H, Chen M. Endoscopic Procedures in the Treatment of Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Surg. 2021;8:626939. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2021.626939.