Skip to main content

Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Stricture Repair

Ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures (UAS) are late complications of radical cystectomy with urinary diversion, occurring in 3%–25% of patients. They cause progressive hydronephrosis and renal functional loss and, if unrecognized, can lead to end-stage renal disease.[1] Ischemia at the anastomotic margin is an important mechanism. Tissue handling, perfusion, tension, leakage and other patient or operative factors influence it. Reconstruction aims to 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 accounted for 18/31 (58%) treated renal units in one cohort and 34/50 (68%) repaired renal units in another. In the first cohort, success across endoscopic and open interventions was lower on the left (50% versus 85% on the right), possibly reflecting greater tension when routing 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] In a 2,888-patient open-cystectomy cohort, prior abdominal surgery had the strongest association (HR 3.25; 10-year stricture risk 9.3% versus 1.9% without it).[6] In one RARC cohort, intracorporeal diversion was associated with stricture (OR 3.28).[2] A 2026 meta-analysis found no statistically significant ICUD-versus-ECUD difference within RARC cases (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73–1.54); most included studies were retrospective, leaving potential confounding.[44] One retrospective cohort associated index stenting with stricture (adjusted OR 2.27), with stentless surgery introduced later in the series.[4] A retrospective study associated longer distal ureteral resection with fewer strictures. The operative goal is to reach viable tissue without anastomotic tension.[9]

Preoperative Evaluation​

  • Imaging. Select CT urography, renal ultrasound, MAG3 renography, loopogram or pouchogram, retrograde pyelogram, and antegrade nephrostogram according to diversion and access.[1][42] After index RARC with extracorporeal diversion, 25/143 renal units (17%) with dilation on six-week ultrasound developed confirmed UAS; fluoroscopic and functional studies were used for suspected cases.[42]
  • 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] In a six-center retrospective robotic-revision series, final pathology identified malignancy in 4/58 strictures (6.9%).[22]
  • Renal function. Assess global and differential function, drainage, symptoms and recoverability. Low split function alone is not an automatic indication for nephrectomy.
  • Infection before endoscopic treatment. For planned incision or dilation that breaches urinary mucosa, screen for and treat asymptomatic bacteriuria ; obtain a culture to guide targeted therapy rather than treating empirically . For asymptomatic bacteriuria, IDSA suggests 1–2 perioperative doses rather than a prolonged course, starting 30–60 minutes before the procedure .[38]
  • Ureteral rest. In one single-institution repair series, patients underwent 4 weeks of ureteral rest with conversion to nephrostomy drainage before definitive revision.[8]

Endourological Approaches​

A selected endoscopic attempt is reasonable for short UAS (especially ≤1 cm), patients with high operative risk, or as a bridge to revision. In a 2026 synthesis of comparative cohorts, open revision had higher primary patency than endoscopic treatment (RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.54–3.47), with more minor complications and no demonstrated difference in major complications; study heterogeneity limits treatment comparisons.[35][36] Long-term patency is inferior to surgical repair. A retrospective single-institution study (1989–2016; 26 open revisions and 135 endourological procedures in 76 patients) reported 60-month patency of 27% after endourological treatment and 69% after open revision (p = 0.003), with median patency of 5 versus 15.5 months (p = 0.014).[11] Endourological treatment had shorter hospital stays (2 versus 14 days) and lower complication rates that did not reach significance (p = 0.528).[11]

Balloon Dilation​

Balloon dilation is the most accessible endoscopic option. A meta-analysis of 19 case series of benign ureteral strictures (not specific to ureteroenteric disease) reported long-term (6–12 month) success of 54%.[12] A UAS-specific meta-analysis of 18 retrospective studies reported pooled endoscopic success of 46%.[35][11] Reported success was 35% with balloon dilation and 48% with laser vaporization; the 47% reported for stent insertion can reflect maintained drainage during repeated stent exchanges rather than stent-free patency.[35] Success was higher for strictures ≤1 cm (OR 8.65).[35] These data are heterogeneous and single-arm. Balloon dimensions, stenting and duration are individualized.

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] In a 22-patient mixed-etiology ureteral-stricture series that included ureteroenteric cases, 16/21 evaluable patients (76%) were clinically well without reported recurrence; at least 9 months of follow-up was available for only 18 patients.[13] Five recurrences occurred within 3 months, all in long or complex strictures. Stricture length and etiology remain important outcome determinants.[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. 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% (20 of 25 strictures) at a median follow-up of 51 months.[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. In a retrospective series of 18 patients (22 strictures), primary success was 74% (14 of 19 strictures) at a mean follow-up of 23.5 months. Failures were 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.[29]

Predictors of Endoscopic Failure​

  • Stricture length >1 cm. Strictures ≤1 cm are more favorable candidates for endoscopic treatment.[1][35]
  • Left-sided strictures. Across endoscopic and open interventions combined, treatment succeeded in 9/18 left-sided renal units (50%) versus 11/13 right-sided renal units (85%) in one cohort.[7] A nine-study UAS meta-analysis found higher endoscopic success on the right (right-versus-left OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.05–2.81).[35]
  • 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 has reported success rates of 80%–91% in historical series and remains the historical reference standard.[1][7][10] In a separate retrospective comparison, Kaplan–Meier patency after open revision was 69% at 60 months.[11] 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 low-lombotomy retroperitoneal approach was described in 11 patients with isolated right-sided UAS; mean operative time was 49.7 minutes and no perioperative complications were reported.[20] This access avoids transperitoneal re-entry.[20]

Robot-Assisted Repair​

Robotic revision is an option in experienced centers. A single-center retrospective post-RARC cohort of 45 patients (55 robotic repairs) reported recurrent stricture after 13/55 repairs (24%) at median 42.4-month follow-up; Kaplan–Meier estimated three-year recurrence was 29%.[37] Ninety-day complications occurred after 31/55 repairs (56%), including 12/55 (22%) with Clavien–Dindo grade III or higher events.[37] Uncontrolled robotic series reported recurrence in 5/58 ureters (8.6%) among 46 patients at median 18-month follow-up,[22] 2/31 patients (6.5%) at median 21 months,[21] and 5.8% stricture recurrence in a 103-patient ureteroileal bypass cohort at median 24.3 months.[24] A retrospective multicenter comparison of 82 repairs (65 robotic, 17 open, with all open procedures from one center) reported stricture-free rates at median 23.5-month follow-up of 80% versus 90% (p = 0.42), 30-day overall complications of 37% versus 70.6% (grade III–IV: 4.6% versus 23.5%), and median stay of 3 versus 6 days.[23]The groups differed in selection, center and operative era.[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

In their six-patient technical report, Sarychev and Klein used intraluminal ICG through a nephrostomy to localize the stricture, then completed reimplantation with a running 4-0 Stratafix suture over a double-J stent; that ICG route did not assess perfusion.[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 excisionA flap from the existing bowel segment bridges the gap without additional graft harvest. One robotic series used it in 9/58 renal units (15.5%); a separate open series reported tissue substitution in 3/11 patients (27%) without specifying that each received this flap.[22][8]
Downward nephropexyProximal ureteral tensionInferior renal mobilization may add reach. The cited 27-patient series used it with Boari bladder flaps for native-bladder reconstruction more often in proximal than distal strictures (58% vs 12%); it did not measure a 3–5 cm gain or study ureteroenteric revisions.[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.
Buccal mucosal graft ureteroplastyLong native-ureter stricture with a viable ureteral plateOnlay augmentation can avoid bowel harvest and has been described for long or recurrent native-ureter strictures, including irradiated fields.[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); per-ureter rates were 12.7% with running and 8.5% with interrupted sutures (p = 0.14). Surgeon and technique effects may be intertwined.[17][27]
Bricker vs. WallaceBoth acceptable; pooled patient-level analysis shows no significant overall stricture differenceA single-surgeon series (186 patients) reported strictures in 3.7% of Bricker ureters and 0% of Wallace ureters (p = 0.015).[19] A later series (135 patients) reported 5.9% of Bricker and 16.6% of Wallace renal units (p < 0.001), with no significant per-patient difference; 69% of the Wallace strictures were bilateral.[18] A 2025 meta-analysis pooled the patient-level endpoint from 13 studies (1,848 patients) and found no significant overall difference (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.50–1.15); an ileal-conduit subgroup favored Wallace (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19–0.64).[41]
Hybrid Bricker / WallaceReasonable alternative when bilateral conjoined risk is unwantedCombines elements of both. In one retrospective single-center comparison, the stricture rate was 7% with the hybrid technique vs 26% with Bricker (p = 0.03) and 11% with Wallace (not significant).[30]
Refluxing vs. antirefluxBalance reflux protection against obstruction riskIn a sequential cohort of 953 patients (median follow-up 65 months), 10-year stricture rates in previously undilated ureters were 14.2% with the nonrefluxing Le Duc technique and 2.4% with the refluxing Wallace-type technique.[5]
Ureteral length and routeResect nonviable tissue while preserving tension-free reachLonger distal resections were associated with fewer strictures in a retrospective cohort.[9] In the 303-patient randomized MOSAIC trial, a retrosigmoid ileal conduit did not significantly reduce left UAS versus a conventional conduit at median 754-day follow-up (6/148 [4.1%] versus 10/149 [6.7%], p = 0.31).[43]
Perioperative stentingPlan drainage individuallyThe OR 2.27 association comes from a retrospective cohort with an era change in stent practice.[4]

Prevention With ICG Fluorescence Angiography​

Intravenous ICG fluorescence can supplement perfusion assessment before anastomosis. In a sequential single-center RARC cohort with extracorporeal diversion (392 patients; 196 per group), estimated 24-month UAS risk was 3% with ICG versus 14% without it; historical controls and shorter ICG follow-up limit causal inference.[39] A 2026 meta-analysis of four observational RARC comparisons (886 patients; 1,739 ureters) did not establish a per-ureter reduction (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08–1.16; I² 76.4%); certainty was very low.[40]

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 versus 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.[34]

Postoperative Surveillance​

One endoscopic series used CT at 3 months and 1 year and ultrasound at 6 and 9 months, then annually.[14] Early imaging is arranged after stent removal, and follow-up continues according to renal function, symptoms, diversion and prior radiation. Asymptomatic recurrent obstruction may occur later. In one 43-patient mixed ureteral-stricture series (32 balloon dilations, 10 catheter dilations and one laser incision), 6/34 patients without immediate failure recurred within 36 months, including 4 within the first year.[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.

See Also​

Videos​

Robotic Repair of a Uretero-Neobladder Anastomotic Stricture
AUA Urology Teaching Videos (2019)
Robotic Y-V Plasty for Ureteroileal Anastomotic Stricture
Flynn H, et al. Urology Video Journal 2022 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Open source videoRead the article
Robotic Uretero-Ileal Reimplantation for Benign Stricture After ICUD
Andras I, et al. Urology Video Journal 2024 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Open source videoRead the article

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. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65279-0

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.

36. Kendrekar P, Bhatia A, Bakbak H, et al. "Open vs Endoscopic Management of Benign Ureteroenteric Anastomotic Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." J Endourol. 2026. doi:10.1177/08927790261472745

37. Mahmood AW, Harrington G, Jing Z, et al. "Robot-assisted uretero-enteric reimplantation for uretero-enteric anastomotic strictures following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Surgical approach and outcomes over two decades." Asian J Urol. 2024;11(3):384–390. doi:10.1016/j.ajur.2023.10.002

38. Nicolle LE, Gupta K, Bradley SF, et al. "Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria: 2019 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America." Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(10):e83–e110. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1121

39. Lama DJ, Jaime-Casas S, Hudnall M, et al. "Evaluation of long-term outcomes utilizing indocyanine green to decrease ureteroenteric anastomotic stricture during robotic radical cystectomy and extracorporeal urinary diversion." Eur Urol Open Sci. 2025;81:5–12. doi:10.1016/j.euros.2025.06.004

40. Nominato EO, Miranda AARR, Fernandes MEM, et al. "Intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence guidance to reduce ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures during robot-assisted radical cystectomy. A systematic review and meta-analysis." Urol Oncol. Published online September 3, 2026. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2026.08.003

41. de Araújo Neto FJ, de Sousa FRC, Aggensteiner CR, et al. "New Evidence on an Old Question: a Meta-Analysis of Wallace versus Bricker Anastomoses." Int Braz J Urol. 2025;51(6):e20250100. doi:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2025.0100

42. Lama DJ, Jaime-Casas S, Imam A, et al. "Renal ultrasound as a surveillance method for ureteroenteric anastomotic stricture following radical cystectomy and urinary diversion." Urol Oncol. 2026;44(1):64.e1–64.e6. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2025.09.017

43. Brandt SB, Körner SK, Milling RV, et al. "Ureteroenteric strictures following retrosigmoid vs. conventional ileal conduit – The MOSAIC study (The DaBlaCa-16 study)." BJU Int. 2025;136(5):858–865. doi:10.1111/bju.16894

44. Alfarhan AR, Matsukawa A, Cormio A, et al. "Impact of Surgical Techniques on Anastomotic Stricture in Urinary Diversion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Eur Urol Open Sci. 2026;88:116–128. doi:10.1016/j.euros.2026.05.002