| Literature DB >> 30141263 |
Takuya Koie1, Chikara Ohyama1, Takahiro Yoneyama1, Hirotaka Nagasaka1, Hayato Yamamoto1, Atsushi Imai1, Shingo Hatakeyama1, Yasuhiro Hashimoto1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study compared the surgical and urinary functional outcomes in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) who underwent robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) followed by intracorporeal ileal neobladder reconstruction (ICNB) to those in patients who underwent minimum incision endoscopic radical cystectomy (MIE-RC) followed by extracorporeal ileal neobladder reconstruction (ECNB).Entities:
Keywords: ileal neobladder; intracorporeal urinary diversion; muscle-invasive bladder cancer; radical cystectomy; robot-assisted surgery
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30141263 PMCID: PMC6282822 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1955
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Med Robot ISSN: 1478-5951 Impact factor: 2.547
Figure 1Schema of surgical procedure for U‐shaped intracorporeal ileal neobladder. (A) Selection of the appropriate portion of ileum that reaches the urethra without tension. A 40‐cm bowel segment is chosen for the neobladder. A 14‐F urethral catheter is inserted through the urethra to irrigate the ileum. (B) The ileal loop is fixed to the pelvic floor to facilitate ease of handling and the neobladder‐urethral anastomosis. (C) Detubularization of the ileal loop and urethro‐ileal anastomosis. The urethro‐ileal anastomosis is started by suturing the ileal edge to the posterior aspect of the urethral stump at the 6 o'clock position. The anastomosis continues anteriorly in a running fashion, up to the 12 o'clock position. (D) The detubularized ileal loop is arranged in an inverted U‐shape and the inner opposite borders are oversewn with a single‐layer seromuscular running suture. (E) After the ureteral anastomosis, the U‐flap is cross‐folded to make a pouch. (F) Closure of ileal pouch
Patients' characteristics
| RARC + ICNB (N = 22) | MIE‐RC + ECNB (N = 131) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year, median, IQR) | 67 (59‐69) | 67 (60‐72) | 0.716 |
| Gender, N (%) | 0.046 | ||
| Male | 21 (95.5) | 97 (74.0) | |
| Female | 1 (4.55) | 34 (26.0) | |
| Clinical T, N (%) | 0.345 | ||
| T2 | 13 (59.1) | 65 (49.6) | |
| T3 | 7 (31.8) | 64 (48.9) | |
| T4a | 2 (9.1) | 2 (1.5) | |
| Clinical N, N (%) | 0.251 | ||
| Negative | 21 (95.5) | 125 (95.4) | |
| Positive | 1 (4.5) | 6 (4.6) | |
| Grade, N (%) | 0.912 | ||
| 2 | 5 (22.7) | 38 (29.0) | |
| 3 | 17 (77.3) | 93 (71.0) | |
| Regimen of neoadjuvant chemotherapy |
| ||
| Gem + CDDP | 18 (81.8) | 23 (17.6) | |
| Gem + CBDCA | 4 (18.2) | 108 (82.4) | |
| The interval from the diagnosis of MIBC to RARC (day, median, IQR) | 78 (70‐81) | 64 (57‐73) | 0.038 |
| Follow‐up period (months, median, IQR) | 33.4 (27.2‐44.5) | 71 (39.9‐116.4) | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: CBDCA, carboplatin; CDDP, cisplatin; ECNB, extracoporeal ileal neobladder; Gem, gemcitabine; ICNB, intracorporeal ileal neobladder; IQR, interquartile range; MIBC, muscle‐invasive bladder cancer; MIE‐RC, minimum incision endoscopic radical cystectomy; RARC, robot‐assisted radial cystectomy.
Surgical outcomes and perioperative complications
| RARC + ICNB (N = 22) | MIE‐RC + ECNB (N = 131) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative time for all procedures (minutes, median, IQR) | 430 (349‐476) | 287 (263‐335) | 0.033 |
| Estimated blood loss for all procedures (mL, median, IQR) | 300 (119‐450) | 1150 (720‐1788) | <0.001 |
| Operative time for RC and PLND (minutes, median, IQR) | 117 (97‐130) | 94 (81‐116) | 0.033 |
| Operative time for neobladder reconstruction (minutes, median, IQR) | 156 (142‐198) | 95 (90‐120) | 0.032 |
| Intraoperative transfusion rate (number, %) | 0 (0) | 12 (9.2) | <0.001 |
Abbreviations: ECIN, extracorporeal ileal neobladder; ICNB, intracorporeal ileal neobladder; IQR, interquartile range; MIE‐RC, minimum incision endoscopic radical cystectomy; RC, radical cystectomy; PLND, pelvic lymph node dissection; RARC, robot‐assisted radial cystectomy.
Pathological outcomes
| RARC + ICNB (N = 22) | MIE‐RC + ECNB (N = 131) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pathological stage, number (%) | 0.782 | ||
| T0 | 8 (36.4) | 37 (28.2) | |
| T1 | 6 (27.3) | 37 (28.2) | |
| T2 | 2 (9.0) | 37 (28.2) | |
| T3 | 6 (27.3) | 19 (14.5) | |
| T4 | 0 | 1 (0.9) | |
| Lymph node involvement, number (%) | 3 (13.6) | 6 (4.6) | 0.064 |
| Positive surgical margins | 0 | 1 (0.5) | >0.999 |
| Lymph node yield (median, number, IQR) | 15 (12‐18) | 18 (12‐28) | 0.747 |
Abbreviations: ECNB, extracorporeal ileal neobladder; ICNB, intracorporeal ileal neobladder; IQR, interquartile range; MIE‐RC, minimum incision endoscopic radical cystectomy; RARC, robot‐assisted radial cystectomy.
Perioperative complications
|
RARC + ICNB |
MIE‐RC + ECNB | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of Complication (number, %) | Any grade | ≥Grade 3 | Any grade | ≥Grade 3 |
| Surgical site infection | 2 (9.1) | 0 | 18 (13.7) | 0 |
| Urinary leak | 2 (9.1) | 0 | 11 (8.4) | 0 |
| Ileourethral anastomotic stricture | 1 (4.5) | 1 (4.5) | 5 (3.8) | 5 (3.8) |
| Ileus | 3 (13.6) | 0 | 4 (3.1) | 1 (0.8) |
| Ileal anastomosis leak | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.8) |
| Readmission for complications | 0 | 0 | ||
Abbreviations: ECNB, extracoporeal ileal neobladder; ICNB, intracorporeal ileal neobladder; MIE‐RC, minimum incision endoscopic radical cystectomy; RARC, robot‐assisted radial cystectomy.
Impact of surgical factors on perioperative outcomes in robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy
| Cases | Cases 1‐7 | Cases 8‐14 | Cases 15‐22 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Median operation time (min) | |||
| Total console | 445 | 428 | 330 |
| Cystectomy | 100 | 85 | 82 |
| Lymph node dissection | 22 | 30 | 25 |
| Neobladder reconstruction | 301 | 298 | 213 |
| Median estimated blood loss (mL) | 300 | 330 | 200 |
| Complication (number) | |||
| Any grade | 4 | 3 | 1 |
| Grade 3 or higher | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Figure 2Chronologic changes in neobladder capacity and residual urine volume. The neobladder capacity gradually increased in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. The residual urine volume remained relatively low throughout the follow‐up period in both groups. At 9 months after surgery, the residual urine in the ICNB group was significantly greater than that in the ECNB group (P = 0.002)
Figure 3Chronologic changes in the maximum neobladder pressure (Pdet) and maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP). (A) Chronological changes in Pdet with cross‐folded U‐configuration ileal neobladder. The median Pdet gradually decreased in both groups. At 12 months after surgery, the Pdet in the ICNB group was significantly greater than in the ECNB group (P = 0.027). (B) Chronological changes in MUCP with the cross‐folded U‐configuration ileal neobladder. The MUCP gradually improved in both groups. There were no significant differences between the groups
Figure 4Chronological changes in daytime (A) and night‐time (B) continent status with cross‐folded U‐configuration ileal neobladder. The daytime and night‐time continence status gradually improved in both groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups throughout the follow‐up period