Shawn Dason1, Alvin C Goh2. 1. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY, 10065, USA. goha@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: More than a century of development has led to contemporary urinary diversion. It is paramount that robotic intracorporeal diversions uphold the principles defined by open surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we discuss the fundamental open surgical principles that have led to contemporary techniques of urinary diversion. We then outline the technical aspects of several recently described robotic intracorporeal urinary diversions in the context of these surgical principles. Several potential benefits of intracorporeal urinary diversion are being investigated-such as a reduction in gastrointestinal complications, ureteral strictures, and wound complications. Finally, we highlight the important aspects of establishing an intracorporeal urinary diversion program integrated with an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) program. We have included the perioperative outcomes of 100 consecutive cases of intracorporeal urinary diversion with an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol. In this series, 49% were continent diversions. Patients had a median length of stay of 5 days, with 37% staying 4 days or less. High-grade complications and readmissions were noted in 22 and 20% of patients, respectively. The benefits of intracorporeal urinary diversion appear promising, and there is continued need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to define its role in patients undergoing radical cystectomy.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: More than a century of development has led to contemporary urinary diversion. It is paramount that robotic intracorporeal diversions uphold the principles defined by open surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: In this review, we discuss the fundamental open surgical principles that have led to contemporary techniques of urinary diversion. We then outline the technical aspects of several recently described robotic intracorporeal urinary diversions in the context of these surgical principles. Several potential benefits of intracorporeal urinary diversion are being investigated-such as a reduction in gastrointestinal complications, ureteral strictures, and wound complications. Finally, we highlight the important aspects of establishing an intracorporeal urinary diversion program integrated with an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) program. We have included the perioperative outcomes of 100 consecutive cases of intracorporeal urinary diversion with an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol. In this series, 49% were continent diversions. Patients had a median length of stay of 5 days, with 37% staying 4 days or less. High-grade complications and readmissions were noted in 22 and 20% of patients, respectively. The benefits of intracorporeal urinary diversion appear promising, and there is continued need for high-quality randomized controlled trials to define its role in patients undergoing radical cystectomy.
Authors: Alvin C Goh; Monty A Aghazadeh; Ross E Krasnow; Alexander W Pastuszak; Julie N Stewart; Brian J Miles Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Eila C Skinner; Adrian S Fairey; Susan Groshen; Siamak Daneshmand; Jie Cai; Gus Miranda; Donald G Skinner Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Mihir M Desai; Giuseppe Simone; Andre Luis de Castro Abreu; Sameer Chopra; Mariaconsiglia Ferriero; Salvatore Guaglianone; Francesco Minisola; Daniel Park; Rene Sotelo; Michele Gallucci; Inderbir S Gill; Monish Aron Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Silberstein; Gal E Keren Paz; S Machele Donat; Jonathan A Coleman; Sheila Mathew; Andrew Vickers; Geoffrey C Schnorr; Michael A Feuerstein; Bruce Rapkin; Raul O Parra; Harry W Herr; Vincent P Laudone Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Benjamin Wilfrid Lamb; Wei Shen Tan; Philip Eneje; David Bruce; Amy Jones; Imran Ahmad; Ashwin Sridhar; Hilary Baker; Tim P Briggs; John E Hines; Senthil Nathan; Daniel Martin; Robert C Stephens; John D Kelly Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Raj S Pruthi; Jeff Nix; Dan McRackan; Adam Hickerson; Matthew E Nielsen; Matthew Raynor; Eric M Wallen Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-01-09 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