Perioperative outcomes and complications of intracorporeal vs extracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a real-life, multi-institutional french study

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.

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.

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.

In our real-life, multi-institutional study, RARC with ICUD achieved perioperative outcomes and complication rates comparable to those of RARC with ECUD.

World journal of urology. 2018 May 09 [Epub ahead of print]

Louis Lenfant, Gregory Verhoest, Riccardo Campi, Jérôme Parra, Vivien Graffeille, Alexandra Masson-Lecomte, Dimitri Vordos, Alexandre de La Taille, Mathieu Roumiguie, Marine Lesourd, Lionel Taksin, Vincent Misraï, Pietro Grande, Christophe Vaessen, Guillaume Ploussard, Benjamin Granger, Morgan Rouprêt

Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France., Department of Urology, Pontchaillou Hospital, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France., Department of Urology, Henri Mondor Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) CHU Mondor, Faculté de Médecine, Créteil, France., Department of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU Rangueil, Paul-Sabatier University, 1 Avenue J Pouilhès, 31059, Toulouse Cedex, France., Hôpital privé d'Antony, 1 rue Velpeau, 92160, Antony, France., Clinique Pasteur, 45 Avenue de Lombez, 31300, Toulouse, France., Department of Urology, Clinique St Jean du Languedoc, Toulouse, France., Department of Biostatistics, Groupe Hospitalo-Universitaire EST, Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France., Sorbonne Université, GRC n°5, ONCOTYPE-URO, AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France. .

email news signup