This report presents three cases of colon tumors which developed after an ureterosigmoidostomy. In a checkup, four years after the operation, an inflamed polyp was found in one patient. The second patient developed an adenoma in the section of the colon where the ureter had been implanted. The last patient died of adenocarcinoma of the colon 26 years after her operation. Possible reasons for the development of the tumors, specifically the cancerous ones, are discussed. The risk of developing colon carcinoma is 500 times higher in those who have had an ureterosigmoidostomy than in healthy people. In the case that the ureters are rediverted the section of the colon where they were previously attached must be excised; since there is a strong possibility of cancerous development. To detect the early development of tumors in the colon, we suggest that patients have their stool tested for blood at regular intervals starting 3 years post operatively. If no problems arise barium enema and coloscopy are recommended every five years.

Patients who have undergone implantation of ureters into the sigmoid colon (ureterosigmoidostomy) are known to be at high risk of developing cancer of the colon many years later. The operation is often performed in infancy for congenital abnormalities of the bladder, thus creating a long term surveillance problem. Six of 34 patients (17.6 per cent) who had undergone ureterosigmoidostomy were found at a screening fibresigmoidoscopy to have adenomas of the left colon or severe dysplasia of the stoma, a mean interval of 22 years after their urinary diversion. Four other patients had previously had a sigmoid adenoma or cancer; thus, 29 per cent overall had developed colonic neoplasms, almost all closely related to their stomas. Another patient who, by error, was excluded from the surveillance, died of metastatic cancer of the sigmoid colon within the study period. Regular surveillance by fibresigmoidoscopy of patients who have had urinary diversion affords the opportunity to detect and remove potentially malignant sigmoid lesions. In addition to its clinical importance, it allows a closer study of this unique model of colon carcinogenesis.

This study evaluates our complications arising directly or indirectly from placement or management of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes and provides recommendations for avoidance of complications. Seventy-one patients received PEG tube placement by otolaryngologists between January 1991 and May 1997. Records were reviewed for diagnoses, combined procedures, and complications. Addressing potential causes of complications prompted modification of our technique of PEG tube placement and management. Twenty-three patients received PEG for dysphagia/aspiration unrelated to neoplasia, 11 received PEG with staging endoscopy, 11 received PEG after treatment for head and neck neoplasm, and 26 received PEG at the time of primary resection. Major complications included retained PEG hub and delayed colon abscess ultimately resulting in death. Minor complications included skin abscesses, cellulitis, and early and late vasovagal response with PEG tube removal. An airway emergency, on attempted oral airway intubation, resulted in an aborted PEG attempt and constituted another complication outside the 4 groups stated above. The major complication was not found within a literature review. We have modified our management for avoidance of this complication. We believe the causes of the minor complications have been identified, and with additional modifications in our technique, we have not had any similar complications recently. The recommended techniques are discussed in detail.

We followed postoperatively 75 patients who underwent ureterosigmoidostomy between 1942 and 1987. Of the patients 30 were asked to undergo routine examination, including fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy with biopsy and analysis of a urine-feces slurry for nitrate, nitrite and nitrosamines in comparison to 20 control volunteers. After a mean observation of 14 years 7 months (1 to 46 years) 64.5% of the patients had bilaterally normal kidneys without any previous complications, 77.5% of the renal units being normal. Sigmoidoscopic biopsy revealed 3 carcinomas at the ureterocolonic junction resulting in an 8.5 to 10.5-fold increased risk of colon carcinoma compared to the general population. The excretion of nitrite and N-nitrosamines was increased, and nitrate excretion was decreased compared to healthy control volunteers, suggesting endogenous formation of nitrosamines by bacterially reduced nitrate and endogenous amines. The urological long-term results of ureterosigmoidostomy are similar to those of conduits. However, the increased incidence of colon carcinoma is not yet proved to be higher than in conduits.

The increased risk of colon carcinoma following urinary diversions via colon makes knowledge about preneoplastic changes necessary. In 30 ureterosigmoidostomy patients with a mean observation period of 16 years flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsies and nitrosamine analysis of the feces/urine mixture have been performed. In the biopsies we found an increased sialomucin concentration at the ureterocolonic anastomosis in 29.2%?sialomucin is supposed to be a preneoplastic change?with no significant difference to the mucosa periureteral and in the rectum. In 58.3% we found chronic inflammation at the anastomosis, in 29.2% periureteral and 4.2% in the rectum. 2/30 patients developed adenocarcinoma, 1 patient an atypia and 1 patient a juvenile polyp. The nitrosamine excretion of the ureterosigmoidostomy patients were significantly increased compared to 20 healthy controls with no correlation to the histology at the anastomosis or the observation time. Because of the multilocular presence?colon carcinomas develop only at the anastomosis?sialomucin and chronic inflammation seem to be no preneoplastic changes in urinary diversions. The nitrosamine analysis is not suitable for routine follow-up as well.

Both clinical and experimental observations establish that an adenocarcinoma of the colon is likely to occur at the suture line of ureterosigmoidostomy. The carcinogenesis depends on the initial presence of urine, feces, urothelium, and colonic epithelium in close apposition at a healing suture line. It does not occur in isolated colon loops used for urinary diversion. In our rat model, tumors were completely prevented by interposing ileum between the urothelium and colon. Clinical prevention requires that accurate hospital registries of patients at risk be established and that repeated annual colonoscopy be carried out on all of them.

A 31-year-old man who died of metastatic adenocarcinoma of the sigmoid colon had undergone bilateral ureterosigmoidostomy for exstrophy of the bladder 20 years earlier. The patient never underwent a colonoscopy. Neoplastic transformation at the ureterosigmoid anastomosis must be considered as a possible severe complication, and therefore, periodic follow-up of these patients is mandatory.

A case of bilateral juvenile polyps and unilateral adenocarcinoma at the ureterocolic junctions occurring 40 years after ureterosigmoidostomy for exstrophy of the bladder is reported. Although adenocarcinoma of colon at the anastomotic site represents an uncommon late complication of ureterosigmoidostomy, patients undergoing this form of urinary diversion have a risk of developing colonic carcinoma that is 100 to 550 times greater than the normal population. Moreover this complication is being reported with increasing frequency in the literature. Different pathogenetic factors may play a role in carcinogenesis, but none has been satisfactorily proven. We suggest the possibility that polyps developing at the site of a ureterocolic junction may represent precancerous lesions.

Colonoscopy with biopsy was included in the surveillance of 19 patients with ureterosigmoidostomy, because of the high incidence of colonic carcinoma reported in such cases. The patients were examined 1-6 times, at intervals of 1-2 years, 4-36 years after the urinary diversion. Random biopsies from the distal colon and rectum showed only discrete changes, and no dysplasia. Polyps with dysplastic changes were found close to ureteral anastomoses in three patients. For routine check-up of the rectosigmoid region and the ureteral implantation sites, examination with a flexible sigmoidoscope seems to be adequate and preferable, giving easy access to the risk zone for the development of cancer. Caution should be exercised, however, when performing biopsy close to the ureteral orifices.

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.