1
|
Luo Q, Xu L, Lin C, Chao H, Zeng T, Zhu Z. The clinical study of urinary flow parameters after drag-and-bond anastomosis for ileal orthotopic neobladder reconstruction. Int Urol Nephrol 2024; 56:2615-2621. [PMID: 38502467 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-024-04015-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/26/2023] [Accepted: 03/02/2024] [Indexed: 03/21/2024]
Abstract
AIM To assess the viability of this procedure in laparoscopic radical cystectomy with ileal orthotopic neobladder reconstruction, the objective of this study is to examine the relationship between urinary flow parameters of urethral drag-and-bond anastomosis in the reconstruction of the ileal orthotopic neobladder. METHODS 36 patients with bladder cancer underwent laparoscopic radical cystectomy with ileal orthotopic neobladder reconstruction at Jiangxi provincial people's hospital between June 2016 and January 2021,16 patients underwent intermittent urethral anastomosis, while 20 patients underwent neobladder-urethral drag-and-bond anastomosis. The maximum bladder capacity, residual urine output, maximum urinary flow rate, and outlet morphology of the new bladder neck were all monitored throughout postoperative follow-up regularly. RESULTS There was no significant difference between the urethral drag-and-bond anastomosis group (group A) and the conventional anastomosis group (group B) at 3 months and 12 months after surgery, and the maximum bladder capacity (3 months, 488.35 ± 51.56 ml vs 481.06 ± 40.61 ml, t = -0.462, P = 0.647; 12 months, 496.35 ± 51.09 ml vs 476.56 ± 56.33 ml, t = -1.103, P = 0.278), residual urine output (3 months, 44.15 ± 24.12 ml vs 38.69 ± 21.82 ml, t = -0.704, P = 0.486;12 months, 49.65 ± 26.95 ml vs 36.75 ± 21.96 ml, t = -1.546, P = 0.131) and maximum urine flow rate (3 months, 12.36 ± 2.63 ml/s vs 13.60 ± 2.82 ml/s, t = 1.361, P = 0.182;12 months, 12.18 ± 3.14 ml/s vs 11.13 ± 3.01 ml/s, t = -1.004, P = 0.322) of the two groups were not significant (P > 0.05). The new bladder outlet morphology was not distorted in group A patients, the continuity was good, and there were fewer associated complications. CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference in postoperative urodynamic parameters between the urethral drag-and-bond anastomosis group and the conventional anastomosis group, and the postoperative new bladder outlet was in good shape, with clinical significance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qixun Luo
- Jiangxi Medical College, Nanchang University, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China
- Department of Urology, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, No.92Aiguo Road, Donghu District, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China
| | - Lieyu Xu
- Department of Urology, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, No.92Aiguo Road, Donghu District, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China
| | - Chuanyun Lin
- Department of Urology, Fenyi County Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Xinyu, 336600, Jiangxi, China
| | - Haichao Chao
- Department of Urology, Nanchang University Second Affiliated Hospital, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China
| | - Tao Zeng
- Department of Urology, Nanchang University Second Affiliated Hospital, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China
| | - Zunwei Zhu
- Department of Urology, Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital, No.92Aiguo Road, Donghu District, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Barone B, Napolitano L, Reccia P, Calace FP, De Luca L, Olivetta M, Stizzo M, Rubinacci A, Della Rosa G, Lecce A, Romano L, Sciorio C, Spirito L, Mattiello G, Vastarella MG, Papi S, Calogero A, Varlese F, Tataru OS, Ferro M, Del Biondo D, Napodano G, Vastarella V, Lucarelli G, Balsamo R, Fusco F, Crocetto F, Amicuzi U. Advances in Urinary Diversion: From Cutaneous Ureterostomy to Orthotopic Neobladder Reconstruction-A Comprehensive Review. J Pers Med 2024; 14:392. [PMID: 38673019 PMCID: PMC11051023 DOI: 10.3390/jpm14040392] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2024] [Revised: 04/01/2024] [Accepted: 04/06/2024] [Indexed: 04/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Bladder cancer ranks as the 10th most prevalent cancer globally with an increasing incidence. Radical cystectomy combined with urinary diversion represents the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, offering a range of techniques tailored to patient factors. Overall, urinary diversions are divided into non-continent and continent. Among the first category, cutaneous ureterostomy and ileal conduit represent the most common procedures while in the second category, it could be possible to describe another subclassification which includes ureterosigmoidostomy, continent diversions requiring catheterization and orthotopic voiding pouches and neobladders. In this comprehensive review, urinary diversions are described in their technical aspects, providing a summary of almost all alternatives to urinary diversion post-radical cystectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Biagio Barone
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, AORN Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano, 81100 Caserta, Italy; (F.F.); (U.A.)
| | - Luigi Napolitano
- Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (L.N.); (A.R.); (G.D.R.); (A.L.); (L.R.); (G.M.); (S.P.); (F.C.)
| | - Pasquale Reccia
- Urology Unit, AORN Ospedali dei Colli, Monaldi Hospital, 80131 Naples, Italy; (P.R.); (F.P.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Francesco Paolo Calace
- Urology Unit, AORN Ospedali dei Colli, Monaldi Hospital, 80131 Naples, Italy; (P.R.); (F.P.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Luigi De Luca
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Multispecialty, AORN Antonio Cardarelli, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | - Michelangelo Olivetta
- Urology Unit, Gaetano Fucito Hospital, AOU San Giovanni di Dio e Ruggi d’Aragona, 84085 Mercato San Severino, Italy;
| | - Marco Stizzo
- Urology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80131 Naples, Italy; (M.S.); (L.S.)
| | - Andrea Rubinacci
- Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (L.N.); (A.R.); (G.D.R.); (A.L.); (L.R.); (G.M.); (S.P.); (F.C.)
| | - Giampiero Della Rosa
- Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (L.N.); (A.R.); (G.D.R.); (A.L.); (L.R.); (G.M.); (S.P.); (F.C.)
| | - Arturo Lecce
- Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (L.N.); (A.R.); (G.D.R.); (A.L.); (L.R.); (G.M.); (S.P.); (F.C.)
| | - Lorenzo Romano
- Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (L.N.); (A.R.); (G.D.R.); (A.L.); (L.R.); (G.M.); (S.P.); (F.C.)
| | | | - Lorenzo Spirito
- Urology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80131 Naples, Italy; (M.S.); (L.S.)
| | - Gennaro Mattiello
- Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (L.N.); (A.R.); (G.D.R.); (A.L.); (L.R.); (G.M.); (S.P.); (F.C.)
| | - Maria Giovanna Vastarella
- Gynaecology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80131 Naples, Italy;
| | - Salvatore Papi
- Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (L.N.); (A.R.); (G.D.R.); (A.L.); (L.R.); (G.M.); (S.P.); (F.C.)
| | - Armando Calogero
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Section of General Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (A.C.); (F.V.)
| | - Filippo Varlese
- Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Section of General Surgery, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (A.C.); (F.V.)
| | - Octavian Sabin Tataru
- Department of Simulation Applied in Medicine, The Institution Organizing University Doctoral Studies (I.O.S.U.D.), George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences, and Technology from Târgu Mureș, 540142 Târgu Mureș, Romania;
| | - Matteo Ferro
- Department of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO) IRCCS, 20141 Milan, Italy;
| | - Dario Del Biondo
- Department of Urology, Ospedale del Mare, ASL NA1 Centro, 80147 Naples, Italy; (D.D.B.); (G.N.)
| | - Giorgio Napodano
- Department of Urology, Ospedale del Mare, ASL NA1 Centro, 80147 Naples, Italy; (D.D.B.); (G.N.)
| | - Vincenzo Vastarella
- Department of Translational Medical Sciences, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80131 Naples, Italy;
- Division of Cardiology, Cardiovascular Department, AORN Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano, 81100 Caserta, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Lucarelli
- Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation, University of Bari, 70124 Bari, Italy;
| | - Raffaele Balsamo
- Urology Unit, AORN Ospedali dei Colli, Monaldi Hospital, 80131 Naples, Italy; (P.R.); (F.P.C.); (R.B.)
| | - Ferdinando Fusco
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, AORN Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano, 81100 Caserta, Italy; (F.F.); (U.A.)
- Urology Unit, Department of Woman, Child and General and Specialized Surgery, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80131 Naples, Italy; (M.S.); (L.S.)
| | - Felice Crocetto
- Department of Neurosciences and Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, 80131 Naples, Italy; (L.N.); (A.R.); (G.D.R.); (A.L.); (L.R.); (G.M.); (S.P.); (F.C.)
| | - Ugo Amicuzi
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, AORN Sant’Anna e San Sebastiano, 81100 Caserta, Italy; (F.F.); (U.A.)
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Piramide F, Turri F, Amparore D, Fallara G, De Groote R, Knipper S, Wuernschimmel C, Bravi CA, Lambert E, Di Maida F, Liakos N, Pellegrino F, Andras I, Mastrorosa A, Tillu N, Mastroianni R, Paciotti M, Wenzel M, Bianchi R, di Trapani E, Moschovas MC, Gandaglia G, Moschini M, D'Hondt F, Rocco B, Fiori C, Galfano A, Minervini A, Simone G, Briganti A, De Cobelli O, Gaston R, Montorsi F, Breda A, Wiklund P, Porpiglia F, Mottrie A, Larcher A, Dell'Oglio P. Atlas of Intracorporeal Orthotopic Neobladder Techniques After Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy and Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes. Eur Urol 2024; 85:348-360. [PMID: 38044179 DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.11.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2023] [Revised: 10/24/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Multiple and heterogeneous techniques have been described for orthotopic neobladder (ONB) reconstruction after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Nonetheless, a systematic assessment of all the available options is lacking. OBJECTIVE To provide the first comprehensive step-by-step description of all the available techniques for robotic intracorporeal ONB together with individual intraoperative, perioperative and functional outcomes based on a systematic review of the literature. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We performed a systematic review of the literature, and MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify original articles describing different robotic intracorporeal ONB techniques and reporting intra- and perioperative outcomes. Studies were categorized according to ONB type, providing a synthesis of the current evidence. Video material was provided by experts in the field to illustrate the surgical technique of each intracorporeal ONB. SURGICAL PROCEDURE Nine different ONB types were identified: Studer, Hautmann, Y shape, U shape, Bordeaux, Pyramid, Shell, Florence Robotic Intracorporeal Neobladder, and Padua Ileal Neobladder. MEASUREMENTS Continuous and categorical variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation and as frequencies and proportions, respectively. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Of 2587 studies identified, 19 met our inclusion criteria. No cohort studies or randomized control trials comparing different neobladder types are available. Available techniques for intracorporeal robotic ONB reconstruction have similar operative time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, and length of stay. Major variability exists concerning postoperative complications and functional outcomes, likely related to reporting bias. CONCLUSIONS Several techniques are described for intracorporeal ONB during robot-assisted radical cystectomy with comparable perioperative outcomes. We provide the first step-by-step surgical atlas for robot-assisted ONB reconstruction. Further comparative studies are needed to assess any advantage of one technique over others. PATIENT SUMMARY Patients elected for radical cystectomy should be aware that multiple techniques for robotic orthotopic neobladder are available, but that current evidence does not favor one type over the others.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federico Piramide
- Department of Oncology, Division of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy; Department of Urology, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium.
| | - Filippo Turri
- Department of Urology, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Daniele Amparore
- Department of Oncology, Division of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Fallara
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ruben De Groote
- Department of Urology, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium
| | - Sophie Knipper
- Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum am Urban, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Carlo Andrea Bravi
- Department of Urology, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium; Department of Urology, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Edward Lambert
- Department of Urology, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium
| | - Fabrizio Di Maida
- Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Nikolaos Liakos
- Department of Urology, Medical Faculty and Medical Centre of the University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Francesco Pellegrino
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Iulia Andras
- Department of Urology, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
| | - Alessandro Mastrorosa
- Unit of Urology, Clinique Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France; Urology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II", Bari, Italy
| | - Neeraja Tillu
- Department of Urology, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Riccardo Mastroianni
- Department of Urology, IRCCS "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Marco Paciotti
- Department of Urology, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium
| | - Mike Wenzel
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
| | - Roberto Bianchi
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Ettore di Trapani
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Giorgio Gandaglia
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Moschini
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Bernando Rocco
- Department of Urology, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Cristian Fiori
- Department of Oncology, Division of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Antonio Galfano
- Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Minervini
- Department of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Simone
- Department of Urology, IRCCS "Regina Elena" National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
| | - Alberto Briganti
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Ottavio De Cobelli
- Department of Urology, IEO European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Richard Gaston
- Unit of Urology, Clinique Saint-Augustin, Bordeaux, France
| | - Francesco Montorsi
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Alberto Breda
- Department of Urology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Fundaciò Puigvert, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Peter Wiklund
- Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden
| | - Francesco Porpiglia
- Department of Oncology, Division of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Alexandre Mottrie
- Department of Urology, OLV Hospital, Aalst, Belgium; ORSI Academy, Melle, Belgium
| | - Alessandro Larcher
- Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, URI, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Dell'Oglio
- Department of Urology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Salihagic IK, Hrkac A, Ovcaricek S, Bokarica P, Gilja I. Outcome of small versus big capacity Hautmann neobladder reconstruction: A prospective randomized study - a 5-year follow up. Technol Health Care 2024; 32:951-962. [PMID: 37661899 DOI: 10.3233/thc-230339] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Orthotopic urinary diversion is the preferred diversion after cystectomy. Neobladder reconstruction with a longer ileum segment (60 cm) is advantageous for obtaining a large capacity and continence at the beginning; however, the long-term risk of residual urine, chronic infection, and the need for intermittent catheterization is more pronounced with the neobladder constructed with a longer ileal segment compared to the neobladder tailored from the shorter ileal segment. OBJECTIVE To establish the differences in the functional outcome of a shorter (< 45 cm) and longer (⩾ 45 cm) ileal segment usage in the reconstruction of the Hautmann ileal neobladder following the radical cystectomy. METHODS Between July 2013 and September 2015, 121 patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer underwent radical cystectomy and Hautmann ileal neobladder reconstruction. Patients were divided into two groups, depending on the length of the ileum used for the diversion creation: < 45 cm of the ileum was used in the first group and ⩾ 45 cm in the second group. Five-year follow-up was performed at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months and 1 and 5 years. The main measured outcomes were functional outcomes and the quality of life. The evaluation included clinical, laboratory, and QLQ-C30 questionnaires. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney U test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, ANOVA, and chi-squared tests. RESULTS Patients with a smaller neobladder had a better quality of life, and higher global health status scale score. Thirteen early and 21 late complications developed in 10 and 17 patients, respectively. There were significant differences in the need for clean intermittent self-catheterization (CIC) between the two groups: smaller-volume pouch patients had statistically decreased need for CIC in 5 year follow-up compared to larger-volume pouch patients (χ2 test = 8.245; df = 1; P= 0.004). Eighteen percent of patients with smaller neobladders had urinary tract infections in 5 years, compared to 35% with larger neobladders (χ2 test = 4.447; df = 1; P= 0.034). CONCLUSION Minimizing the length of the ileal segment needed for Hautmann neobladder reconstruction is feasible and provides better long-term results than larger-volume neobladders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Adelina Hrkac
- Department of Urology, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Slaven Ovcaricek
- Department of Urology, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Pero Bokarica
- Department of Urology, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Ivan Gilja
- Department of Urology, University Hospital "Sveti Duh", Zagreb, Croatia
- Department of Urology, University Hospital Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
| |
Collapse
|