Elio Mazzone1,2,3,4, Frederiek D'Hondt5,6, Sergi Beato5,6, Iulia Andras5,6, Edward Lambert5,6, Jonathan Vollemaere5,6, Marcio Covas Moschovas5,6,7, Ruben De Groote8,5, Geert De Naeyer8,5, Peter Schatteman8,5, Alexandre Mottrie5,6, Paolo Dell'Oglio5,6,9. 1. Division of Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, MI, Italy. eliomazzone@gmail.com. 2. Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. eliomazzone@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium. eliomazzone@gmail.com. 4. Orsi Academy, Melle, Belgium. eliomazzone@gmail.com. 5. Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium. 6. Orsi Academy, Melle, Belgium. 7. AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA. 8. Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 9. Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The available studies comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal (ICUD) vs. extracorporeal (ECUD) urinary diversion have not relied on a standardized methodology to report complications and did not assess the effect of different approaches on postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS: Two hundred and sixty seven patients treated with RARC at a single center were assessed. A retrospective analysis of data prospectively collected according to a standardized methodology was performed. Multivariable logistic regression models (MVA) assessed the impact of ICUD vs. ECUD on intraoperative complications, prolonged length of stay (LOS), 30-day Clavien Dindo (CD) ≥ 2 complications and readmission rate. Interaction terms tested the impact of the approach on different patient subgroups. Lowess graphically depicted the probability of CD ≥ 2 after ICUD or ECUD according to patient baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 162 ICUD vs 105 ECUD (61 vs. 39%) were performed. Intraoperative complications were recorded in 24 patients. The median LOS and readmission rate were 11 vs. 13 (p = 0.02) and 24 vs. 22% (p = 0.7) in ICUD vs. ECUD, respectively. Overall, 227 postoperative complications were recorded. The overall rate of CD ≥ 2 was 35 and 43% in patients with ICUD vs. ECUD, respectively (p = 0.2). At MVA, the approach type was not an independent predictor of any postoperative outcomes (all p ≥ 0.4). Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) was associated with an increased risk of CD ≥ 2 (OR: 1.2, p = 0.006). We identified a significant interaction term between ACCI and approach type (p = 0.04), where patients with ICUD had lower risk of CD ≥ 2 relative to those with ECUD with increasing ACCI. CONCLUSIONS: Relying on a standardized methodology to report complications, we observed that highly comorbid patients who undergo ICUD have lower risk of postoperative complications relative to those patients who received ECUD.
INTRODUCTION: The available studies comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal (ICUD) vs. extracorporeal (ECUD) urinary diversion have not relied on a standardized methodology to report complications and did not assess the effect of different approaches on postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS: Two hundred and sixty seven patients treated with RARC at a single center were assessed. A retrospective analysis of data prospectively collected according to a standardized methodology was performed. Multivariable logistic regression models (MVA) assessed the impact of ICUD vs. ECUD on intraoperative complications, prolonged length of stay (LOS), 30-day Clavien Dindo (CD) ≥ 2 complications and readmission rate. Interaction terms tested the impact of the approach on different patient subgroups. Lowess graphically depicted the probability of CD ≥ 2 after ICUD or ECUD according to patient baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 162 ICUD vs 105 ECUD (61 vs. 39%) were performed. Intraoperative complications were recorded in 24 patients. The median LOS and readmission rate were 11 vs. 13 (p = 0.02) and 24 vs. 22% (p = 0.7) in ICUD vs. ECUD, respectively. Overall, 227 postoperative complications were recorded. The overall rate of CD ≥ 2 was 35 and 43% in patients with ICUD vs. ECUD, respectively (p = 0.2). At MVA, the approach type was not an independent predictor of any postoperative outcomes (all p ≥ 0.4). Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) was associated with an increased risk of CD ≥ 2 (OR: 1.2, p = 0.006). We identified a significant interaction term between ACCI and approach type (p = 0.04), where patients with ICUD had lower risk of CD ≥ 2 relative to those with ECUD with increasing ACCI. CONCLUSIONS: Relying on a standardized methodology to report complications, we observed that highly comorbid patients who undergo ICUD have lower risk of postoperative complications relative to those patients who received ECUD.
Authors: Giovanni E Cacciamani; Luis G Medina; Alessandro Tafuri; Tania Gill; Willy Baccaglini; Vanessa Blasic; Felipe P A Glina; Andre L De Castro Abreu; René Sotelo; Inderbir S Gill; Walter Artibani Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2018-12-23
Authors: Stephen B Williams; Ashish M Kamat; Karim Chamie; Michael Froehner; Manfred P Wirth; Peter N Wiklund; Peter C Black; Gary D Steinberg; Stephen A Boorjian; Sia Daneshmand; Peter J Goebell; Kamal S Pohar; Shahrokh F Shariat; George N Thalmann Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2018-06-06
Authors: Umberto Carbonara; Paolo Minafra; Giuseppe Papapicco; Gaetano De Rienzo; Vincenzo Pagliarulo; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Antonio Vitarelli; Pasquale Ditonno Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-23
Authors: Sophia Liff Maibom; Ulla Nordström Joensen; Alicia Martin Poulsen; Henrik Kehlet; Klaus Brasso; Martin Andreas Røder Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Paolo Dell'Oglio; Stefano Tappero; Mattia Longoni; Carlo Buratto; Pietro Scilipoti; Silvia Secco; Alberto Olivero; Michele Barbieri; Erika Palagonia; Giancarlo Napoli; Elena Strada; Giovanni Petralia; Dario Di Trapani; Angelo Vanzulli; Aldo Massimo Bocciardi; Antonio Galfano Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Angelo Porreca; Luca Di Gianfrancesco; Walter Artibani; Gian Maria Busetto; Giuseppe Carrieri; Alessandro Antonelli; Lorenzo Bianchi; Eugenio Brunocilla; Aldo Massimo Bocciardi; Marco Carini; Antonio Celia; Giovanni Cochetti; Andrea Gallina; Ettore Mearini; Andrea Minervini; Riccardo Schiavina; Sergio Serni; Daniele D'Agostino; Erica Debbi; Paolo Corsi; Alessandro Crestani Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2022-05-04
Authors: Satoshi Katayama; Keiichiro Mori; Benjamin Pradere; Hadi Mostafaei; Victor M Schuettfort; Fahad Quhal; Reza Sari Motlagh; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Marco Moschini; Nico C Grossmann; Yasutomo Nasu; Shahrokh F Shariat; Harun Fajkovic Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Sophia L Maibom; Martin A Røder; Alicia M Poulsen; Peter O Thind; Marie L Salling; Lisbeth N Salling; Henrik Kehlet; Klaus Brasso; Ulla N Joensen Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2021-04-19