P Loertzer1, S Siemer1, M Stöckle1, C H Ohlmann2,3. 1. Department of Urology, Saarland University, Kirrbergerstr, 66421 Homburg, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, Saarland University, Kirrbergerstr, 66421 Homburg, Germany. carsten.ohlmann@malteser.org. 3. Department of Urology, Malteser Krankenhaus Bonn/Rhein-Sieg, Von-Hompesch-Str. 1, 53123, Bonn, Germany. carsten.ohlmann@malteser.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the feasibility and perioperative results of patients undergoing robot-assisted cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion and robot-sewn ileoileal anastomosis. METHODS: This is a mono-centric analysis of perioperative data from 48 consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion and robot-sewn ileoileal anastomosis. Data include the preoperative variables, operative and postoperative course and complication rates related to bowel anastomosis. End points were time spent for anastomosis and intra- and postoperative complication rates. RESULTS: Median operating time was 23.0 (13-60) min for the ileoileal anastomosis. Median overall operating time was 295 (200-780) min, with a median of 282 (200-418) min and 414.0 (225-780) min for the ileum conduit (N = 35) and ileal neobladder (N = 13). Two patients developed paralytic ileus; in another patient acute peritonitis occurred, but was caused by urinary leakage and therefore unrelated to the bowel anastomosis. No anastomotic leakage was noticed. Costs for the robot-sewn anastomosis was 8€ compared to 1250€ for a stapled anastomosis which was performed in previous cases. Limitations are the non-comparative nature of the analysis and the limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-sewn ileoileal anastomosis is feasible with low complication rates. Compared to the stapled anastomosis, a robot-sewn ileoileal anastomosis may serve as an alternative and cost-saving approach.
PURPOSE: To analyze the feasibility and perioperative results of patients undergoing robot-assisted cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion and robot-sewn ileoileal anastomosis. METHODS: This is a mono-centric analysis of perioperative data from 48 consecutive patients undergoing robot-assisted cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion and robot-sewn ileoileal anastomosis. Data include the preoperative variables, operative and postoperative course and complication rates related to bowel anastomosis. End points were time spent for anastomosis and intra- and postoperative complication rates. RESULTS: Median operating time was 23.0 (13-60) min for the ileoileal anastomosis. Median overall operating time was 295 (200-780) min, with a median of 282 (200-418) min and 414.0 (225-780) min for the ileum conduit (N = 35) and ileal neobladder (N = 13). Two patients developed paralytic ileus; in another patient acute peritonitis occurred, but was caused by urinary leakage and therefore unrelated to the bowel anastomosis. No anastomotic leakage was noticed. Costs for the robot-sewn anastomosis was 8€ compared to 1250€ for a stapled anastomosis which was performed in previous cases. Limitations are the non-comparative nature of the analysis and the limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-sewn ileoileal anastomosis is feasible with low complication rates. Compared to the stapled anastomosis, a robot-sewn ileoileal anastomosis may serve as an alternative and cost-saving approach.
Authors: Mihir M Desai; Inderbir S Gill; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Abolfazl Hosseini; Tommy Nyberg; Christofer Adding; Oscar Laurin; Justin Collins; Gus Miranda; Alvin C Goh; Monish Aron; Peter Wiklund Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthias Saar; Carsten-Henning Ohlmann; Stefan Siemer; Jan Lehmann; Frank Becker; Michael Stöckle; Jörn Kamradt Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-11-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Sung Gu Kang; Young Hwii Ko; Hoon A Jang; Jin Kim; Seon Han Kim; Jun Cheon; Seok Ho Kang Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2012-03-30 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: I S Gill; A Fergany; E A Klein; J H Kaouk; G T Sung; A M Meraney; S J Savage; J C Ulchaker; A C Novick Journal: Urology Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; Stephen W Reese; Wei Jiang; Stuart R Lipsitz; Joaquim Bellmunt; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Benjamin I Chung; Adam S Kibel; Steven L Chang Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kamran Ahmed; Shahid A Khan; Matthew H Hayn; Piyush K Agarwal; Ketan K Badani; M Derya Balbay; Erik P Castle; Prokar Dasgupta; Reza Ghavamian; Khurshid A Guru; Ashok K Hemal; Brent K Hollenbeck; Adam S Kibel; Mani Menon; Alex Mottrie; Kenneth Nepple; John G Pattaras; James O Peabody; Vassilis Poulakis; Raj S Pruthi; Joan Palou Redorta; Koon-Ho Rha; Lee Richstone; Matthias Saar; Douglas S Scherr; Stefan Siemer; Michael Stoeckle; Eric M Wallen; Alon Z Weizer; Peter Wiklund; Timothy Wilson; Michael Woods; Muhammad Shamim Khan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-10-09 Impact factor: 20.096