Purpose: Standard radical nephrectomy for large masses is significantly facilitated by liver transplantation techniques, which have been successfully employed over the last ten years at our institution. Large and locally-advanced urothelial carcinoma of the kidney with or without extension into the inferior vena cava is rare. The purpose of this study was to present the surgical management of large and locally-advanced urothelial tumors arising from the renal pelvis using liver transplantation techniques and to evaluate patient outcome. Materials and Methods: Diagnostic work-up and surgical management of 4 patients with large and locally-advanced renal urothelial carcinoma were retrospectively reviewed. Two out of four patients with urothelial carcinoma presented with inferior vena cava thrombus. Mean tumor size was 11.6 cm. All patients underwent surgery, 2 patients with the presumed diagnosis of renal cell cancer. Liver transplantation techniques were an integral part in all radical nephrectomies. Results: No intraoperative complications and postoperative mortality occurred. Mean operative time was 7.5 hours, estimated blood loss was 1.5 L, and an average of 4.8 units of blood was transfused intraoperatively. Three patients succumbed to cancer recurrence at a mean postoperative time of 6.3 months; 1 patient is still alive 24 months after surgery. Conclusions: Large and locally-advanced renal masses of urothelial origin can be successfully removed by a combination of radical nephrectomy with liver transplantation techniques. Since long-term outcome of such patients has been poor, accurate preoperative diagnosis is essential to consider neoadjuvant treatment and to plan nephroureterectomy.

Objectives: The objective of this monograph is to familiarize the reader with dynamic hydrodistention classification of the ureter and Hydrodistention Implantation Technique (HIT) methodology for the endoscopic correction of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). The indications, current success rates, complications, and potential future applications of these methods are reviewed. Methods: Hydrodistention (HD) of the ureteral orifice and distal ureter permits visualization of the intraureteral submucosal injection site and assessment of the degree of ureteral coaptation. We have designated 4 levels of HD. H0 denotes absence of ureteral dilation, H1 indicates dilation of the ureteral orifice only. H2 allows visualization of the intramural ureter, and H3 allows visualization of the extramural ureter. The Double HIT method is a systematic technique that utilizes HD to both classify the ureter and gauge the degree of ureteral coaptation secondary to bulking during endoscopic injection. The needle is inserted at the mid ureteral tunnel at the 6 o'clock position. The first injection coapts the detrusor tunnel (until H1 or H0 is achieved), while a second implant within the most distal intramural tunnel leads to complete coaptation of the ureteral orifice (H0). Results: HD grade correlated significantly with VUR grade. Normal ureters rarely hydrodistended. While non-refluxing contralateral ureters demonstrated low HD grades, all contralateral ureters that subsequently developed VUR showed H2 or H3. The HIT method has not only been employed for primary VUR (90% cure), but also for repeat endoscopic injections (90%), VUR associated with paraureteral diverticula (81%), complex cases such as post-reimplantation (88%), neurogenic bladders (78%), duplication anomalies (80%), and in adults (88%). Furthermore, injection of contralateral VUR-negative but hydrodistending ureters may be treated to prevent new contralateral VUR. While decreasing success was seen with increasing VUR grade with the STING method, superior success rates have been realized with the HIT method. Conclusions: The dynamic hydrodistention classification reflects the competency of the ureterovesical junction. The HIT and Double HIT methods achieve superior cure rates and are likely to become the method of choice for the treatment of primary as well as complex cases of VUR.

Objetivo: El objetivo de esta monografía es familiarizar al lector con la clasificación de la hidrodistensión dinámica del uréter y la metodología de la técnica de hidrodistensión-implante para la corrección endoscópica del reflujo vesicoureteral (RVU). Revisamos las indicaciones, la tasa de éxitos actual, sus complicaciones y las potencialesaplicaciones de estos métodos en el futuro. Métodos: La hidrodistensión del orificio ureteral y el uréter distal permite la visualización del sitio de inyección de la submucosa ureteral y la evaluación del grado de coaptación ureteral. Hemos designado cuatro niveles de hidrodistensión. H0 ausencia de dilatación ureteral, H1 dilatación sólo del orificio ureteral, H2 permite la visualización del uréter intramural y H3 permite la visualización del uréter extramural. El método de doble hidrodistensión-implante es una técnica sistemática que utiliza la hidrodistensión para clasificar el uréter y evaluar el grado de coaptación ureteral después de la inyección endoscópica de sustancias de relleno. La aguja se inserta en el túnel medio ureteral a las 6 horarias. La primera inyección coapta el túnel en el detrusor (hasta conseguir H1 o H0), mientras que una segunda inyección más distal en el túnel intramural lleva una coaptación completa del orificio ureteral (H0). Resultados: El grado de hidrodistensión se correlacionó significativamente con el grado de RVU. Mientras que los uréteres contralaterales no refluyentes demostraban grados bajos de hiperdistensión, todos los uréteres que desarrollaron reflujo vesicoureteral posterior mostraban H2 o H3. El método de hidrodistensión-implante no se ha empleado sólo para RVU primario (90% de curaciones), sino también para inyecciones endoscópicas repetidas (90%), RVU asociado con divertículo paraureteral (8I%), casos complejos como después de reimplante (88%), vejiga neurógena (78%), anomalías con duplicación (80%), y en adultos (88%). Además, el uréter contralateral no refluyente que presenta hidrodistensión puede tratarse para prevenir el RVU de novo. Mientras que con el método STING las tasas de éxito disminuyen al aumentar el grado del RVU, con el método de hidro distensión-implante se han visto mejores tasas de éxitos. Conclusiones: La clasificación de la hidrodistensión dinámica refleja la competencia de la unión ureterovesical. Los métodos de hidrodistensión-implante simple y doble consiguen tasas de curación superiores y probablemente se convertirán en el método de elección para el tratamiento del RVU primario y de los casos complejos.