Neoplasia After Ureterosigmoidostomy.

Publication/Presentation Date

12-1-1999

Abstract

PURPOSE: The occurrence of neoplasia after ureterosigmoidostomy is well-documented in the literature. Because of its rarity, few general surgeons will gain significant exposure to this entity, and colorectal surgeons are likely to be involved with the care of these patients. The purpose of this article is to apprise colorectal surgeons about the management of neoplasia after ureterosigmoidostomy and to familiarize them with the unique anatomy of the reconstructed pelvis.

METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE search to identify articles on ureterosigmoid tumors. The theories regarding the cause and pathology of these tumors were critically analyzed. A consensus was developed for screening patients with ureterosigmoidostomy and for treatment of neoplasia.

RESULTS: The incidence of carcinoma after ureterosigmoidostomy ranges from 2 to 15 percent. Polyps are more common, and it seems that these tumors also follow the sequence of adenocarcinoma that is seen in the common variety of colorectal neoplasia. Neoplastic changes begin with the interaction of urine and feces and the healing colonic mucosa. Both production of nitrosamines by the action of bacteria on urine and DNA damage caused by reactive oxygen radicals produced by neutrophils at the healing anastomosis have been implicated in the pathogenesis of neoplasia. The latent period between formation of ureterosigmoidostomy and the appearance of carcinoma is between 20 and 26 years. Obstructive urinary symptoms that develop more than two years after ureterosigmoidostomy should be viewed with suspicion. The patient should be investigated with a CT scan and colonoscopy, and a barium enema may be required to delineate the anatomy further. If a benign tumor is encountered during colonoscopy, it may be removed by snare polypectomy. For a malignant tumor the segment of colon with ureteric implants should be excised, along with its lymphatic drainage. Bowel continuity is restored primarily, and the ureters are implanted in an ileal conduit.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ureterosigmoidostomy should be followed closely for the rest of their lives. The aim of screening is to identify and treat neoplasia before malignancy develops. Furthermore, early detection of neoplasia by close screening will improve survival. Although urine cytology and occult blood are inexpensive tests, colonoscopy remains the criterion standard for follow-up of these patients. Annual colonoscopic surveillance should be started soon after the ureterosigmoidostomy but not later than five to six years after the procedure. Patients who are noncompliant with the vigorous follow-up schedule should be offered the option of resection of the colonic segment at risk with urinary diversion.

Volume

42

Issue

12

First Page

1632

Last Page

1638

ISSN

0012-3706

Disciplines

Medical Sciences | Medicine and Health Sciences | Surgery

PubMedID

10613486

Department(s)

Department of Medicine, Department of Surgery

Document Type

Article

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS