Louis Lenfant1, Gregory Verhoest2, Riccardo Campi1,3, Jérôme Parra1, Vivien Graffeille2, Alexandra Masson-Lecomte4, Dimitri Vordos4, Alexandre de La Taille4, Mathieu Roumiguie5, Marine Lesourd5, Lionel Taksin6, Vincent Misraï7, Pietro Grande1,8, Christophe Vaessen1, Guillaume Ploussard9, Benjamin Granger10, Morgan Rouprêt11. 1. Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France. 2. Department of Urology, Pontchaillou Hospital, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France. 3. Department of Urology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy. 4. Department of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) CHU Mondor, Faculté de Médecine, Créteil, France. 5. Department of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Pouilhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France. 6. Hôpital privé d'Antony, 1 rue Velpeau, 92160, Antony, France. 7. Clinique Pasteur, 45 Avenue de Lombez, 31300, Toulouse, France. 8. Department of Obstetric and Gynaecological Sciences and Urological Sciences, 'Sapienza' University, Rome, Italy. 9. Department of Urology, Clinique St Jean du Languedoc, Toulouse, France. 10. Department of Biostatistics, Groupe Hospitalo-Universitaire EST, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France. 11. Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France. morgan.roupret@aphp.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare perioperative outcomes and complications of extracorporeal (ECUD) vs intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) in patients after undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) at five referral centers in France. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional, prospectively-collected database to select patients undergoing RARC between 2010 and 2016 with at least 3 months of follow-up. At each center, the surgery was performed by one surgeon with extensive experience in robotic surgery and radical cystectomy but no prior experience in RARC. RESULTS: Overall, 108 patients were included. ECUD and ICUD were performed in 34 (31.5%) and 74 (68.5%) patients, respectively. Patient characteristics were comparable among the two groups, except for a higher proportion of patients with high surgical risk (ASA score ≥ 3) in the ECUD group. Ileal conduit and ileal neobladder were performed in 63/108 (58%) and 45/108 (42%) cases, respectively. Ileal conduit was performed more often with an extracorporeal approach while ileal neobladder with an intracorporeal approach. Overall, operative time, length of hospital stay, positive margin rate, and number of lymph nodes removed did not significantly differ among the two cohorts. Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates were significantly higher in the ECUD group. Rate of early (38.2 vs 47.3%, p = 0.4) and late (29.4 vs 18.9%, p = 0.2) surgical complications did not significantly differ between the ECUD and ICUD groups. Results were comparable in the subgroup analysis in the ileal conduit subpopulation. CONCLUSION: In our real-life, multi-institutional study, RARC with ICUD achieved perioperative outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of RARC with ECUD.
PURPOSE: To compare perioperative outcomes and complications of extracorporeal (ECUD) vs intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD) in patients after undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) at five referral centers in France. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our multi-institutional, prospectively-collected database to select patients undergoing RARC between 2010 and 2016 with at least 3 months of follow-up. At each center, the surgery was performed by one surgeon with extensive experience in robotic surgery and radical cystectomy but no prior experience in RARC. RESULTS: Overall, 108 patients were included. ECUD and ICUD were performed in 34 (31.5%) and 74 (68.5%) patients, respectively. Patient characteristics were comparable among the two groups, except for a higher proportion of patients with high surgical risk (ASA score ≥ 3) in the ECUD group. Ileal conduit and ileal neobladder were performed in 63/108 (58%) and 45/108 (42%) cases, respectively. Ileal conduit was performed more often with an extracorporeal approach while ileal neobladder with an intracorporeal approach. Overall, operative time, length of hospital stay, positive margin rate, and number of lymph nodes removed did not significantly differ among the two cohorts. Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates were significantly higher in the ECUD group. Rate of early (38.2 vs 47.3%, p = 0.4) and late (29.4 vs 18.9%, p = 0.2) surgical complications did not significantly differ between the ECUD and ICUD groups. Results were comparable in the subgroup analysis in the ileal conduit subpopulation. CONCLUSION: In our real-life, multi-institutional study, RARC with ICUD achieved perioperative outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of RARC with ECUD.
Authors: Bertram Yuh; Timothy Wilson; Bernie Bochner; Kevin Chan; Joan Palou; Arnulf Stenzl; Francesco Montorsi; George Thalmann; Khurshid Guru; James W F Catto; Peter N Wiklund; Giacomo Novara Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Justin W Collins; Stavros Tyritzis; Tommy Nyberg; Martin C Schumacher; Oscar Laurin; Christofer Adding; Martin Jonsson; Dinyar Khazaeli; Gunnar Steineck; Peter Wiklund; Abolfazl Hosseini Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ahmed A Hussein; Paul R May; Zhe Jing; Youssef E Ahmed; Carl J Wijburg; Abdulla Erdem Canda; Prokar Dasgupta; Mohammad Shamim Khan; Mani Menon; James O Peabody; Abolfazl Hosseini; John Kelly; Alexandre Mottrie; Jihad Kaouk; Ashok Hemal; Peter Wiklund; Khurshid A Guru Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jim C Hu; Bilal Chughtai; Padraic O'Malley; Joshua A Halpern; Jialin Mao; Douglas S Scherr; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright; Art Sedrakyan Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 20.096
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: J Alfred Witjes; Thierry Lebret; Eva M Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Maria De Santis; Harman Maxim Bruins; Virginia Hernández; Estefania Linares Espinós; James Dunn; Mathieu Rouanne; Yann Neuzillet; Erik Veskimäe; Antoine G van der Heijden; Georgios Gakis; Maria J Ribal Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-06-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew I Milowsky; R Bryan Rumble; Christopher M Booth; Timothy Gilligan; Libni J Eapen; Ralph J Hauke; Pat Boumansour; Cheryl T Lee Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 44.544
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
Authors: Karthik Tanneru; Seyed Behzad Jazayeri; Jatinder Kumar; Muhammad Umar Alam; Daniel Norez; Sabine Nguyen; Soroush Bazargani; Hariharan Palayapalayam Ganapathi; Mark Bandyk; Robert Marino; Shahriar Koochekpour; Shiva Gautam; K C Balaji; Joseph Costa Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2020-11-22
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; Jens Bedke; Karim Chamie; Justin W Collins; Siamak Daneshmand; Petros Grivas; Axel Heidenreich; Edward M Messing; Trevor J Royce; Alexander I Sankin; Mark P Schoenberg; William U Shipley; Arnauld Villers; Jason A Efstathiou; Joaquim Bellmunt; Arnulf Stenzl Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 4.226