Comparative analysis of robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy with orthotopic urinary diversion


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Introduction. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder creation is a complex surgical procedure, which is gradually becoming an alternative to open surgery. Aim. To compare the perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes of open radical cystectomy (ORC) and RARC. Materials and methods. RARC with ileocystoplasty was performed in 25 patients, including 24 men. The average age was 65.5 years. ORC was done in 30 patients (28 men; control group) with the mean age of 67.2 years. In RARC, the ureters were isolated at the level of lower thirds, the bladder was dissected from the rectum on both sides, then the bladder vessels were divided using clips, and the urethra was cut off. After pelvic lymph node dissection, 50 cm of the ileum was resected. Then two distal segments were folded in a U-shape, a 1.5 cm incision was made in the lower part, and an anastomosis with the urethra was carried out. Further, these segments were detubularized and a modified Studer reservoir was created. The ureters were implanted into the tubular part. In ORC, urine diversion was also done using Studer technique. In both groups, the operation time, the volume of blood loss, the number of complications, the duration of hospitalization, the proportion of daytime and nighttime continence were evaluated. Results. The mean time for RARC and ORC was 380 (320-580) and 260 (220-320) min, respectively (p<0.05). In the group of RARC, the volume of blood loss was 85 (50-250) ml and no blood transfusion was performed, while in ORC, the volume of blood loss was 520 (350-1400) ml, an average of 480 (0-840) ml of blood was transfused (p<0.05). After RARC, 30- and 90- complications rate was 32.0% (n=8) and 24.0% (n=6), respectively, compared to 40.0% (n=12) and 30.0% (n=9) in ORC. One patient died due to myocardial infarction during the 90-day follow-up period after RARC (grade V complication according to Clavien). The average number of removed lymph nodes in the RARC group was 15 (10-18). One patient had lymph node metastases. There were no cases of local recurrence. In ORC, the average number of lymph nodes was 16 (11-20), metastases were detected in 2 patients. One of them was subsequently diagnosed with local recurrence. There was no significant difference in the number of lymph nodes removed between two groups. After RARC, 20 (80.0%) patients had complete urinary continence, while 5 patients (20.0%) used 1-2 pads per day. Night continence was preserved in 15 cases (60.0%). After ORC, complete urinary continence was seen in 23 cases (76.7%). Five patients (20.0%) used 1-2 pads per day and two patients (6.7%) used 2-3 pads per day. Night continence after ORC was preserved in 17 cases (56.7%). Conclusion. RARC is a minimally invasive method of surgical treatment of patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Compared with ORC, a significantly lower rate of complications and blood transfusions is documented, but RARC requires a longer operation time. Both interventions provide the equivalent oncological and functional outcomes, which are in line with published data.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

B. G Guliev

NorthWestern State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; Center of Urology with robot-assisted surgery of City Mariinsky hospital

Email: gulievbg@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor at the department of urology

B. K Komyakov

NorthWestern State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov

Email: komyakovbk@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor, Head of the Department of Urology

R. R Bolokotov

Center of Urology with robot-assisted surgery of City Mariinsky hospital

Email: rbolotokovadiga@rambler.ru
physician

References

  1. Witjes J.A., Bruins H.M., Cathomas R., Comperat E.M., Cowan N.C. et al. Eeuropean association of urology guidelinesson muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer:summary of the 2020 guidelines. Eur. Urol. 2021; 79 (1): 82-104. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.055.
  2. Stein J.P., Lieskovsky G., Cote R. et al. Radical cystectomy in the treatment of invasive bladder cancer: long-term results in 1,054 patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001;19:666-675. doi: 10.1200/JC0.2001.19.3.666.
  3. Roghmann F., Trinh Q.D., Braun K., von Bodman C., Brock M., Noldus J. et al. Standardized assessment of complications in a contemporary series of European patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Int J. Urol. 2014;21:143- 149. doi: 10.1111/iju.12232.
  4. Huang H., Yan B., Hao H., Shang M., He Q. et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical cystectomy in 607 patients with bladder cancer: Comparative survival analysis. Int. J. Urol. 2021; doi: 10.1111/iju.14537.
  5. Collins J.W., Tyritzis S., Nyberg T. et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: description of an evolved approach to radical cystectomy. Eur. Urol. 2013;64:654-663. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.05.020.
  6. Desai M.M., Gill I.S., de Castro Abreu A.L. et al. Robotic intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder during radical cystectomy in 132 patients. J. Urol. 2014;192:1734-1740. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.06.087.
  7. Albisinni S., Oderda M., Fossion L. et al. The morbidity of laparoscopic radical cystectomy: analysis of postoperative complications in a multicenter cohort by the European Association of Urology Section of Uro-Technology. World J. Urol. 2016;34:149-156. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1633-1.
  8. Zamboni S., Soria F., Mathieu R. et al. Differences in trends in the use of robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy and changes over time in perioperative outcomes among selected centers in North America and Europe: an international multicenter collaboration. BJU Int 2019. doi: 10.1111/bju.14791.
  9. Parekh D.J., Reis I.M., Castle E.P. et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomized, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018;391:2525-2536. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30996-6.
  10. Johar R.S., Hayn M.H., Stegemann A.P. et al. Complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur. Urol. 2013;64:52-57. Doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2013.01.010
  11. Li K., Lin T., Fan X. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting early outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2013;39:551-560. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.11.007.
  12. Bochner B.H., Dalbagni G., Sjoberg D.D. et al. Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur. Urol. 2015;67:1042-1050. Doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2014.11.043.
  13. Hussein A.A., May P.R., Jing Z. Ahmed YE, Wijburg CJ. et al. Outcomes of intracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. J. Urol. 2018;199:1302-1311. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.12.045.
  14. Collins J.W., Tyritzis S., Nyberg T., Schumacher M.C., Laurin O. et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal neobladder -what is the effect ofthe learning curve on outcomes? BJU Int. 2014;113:100- 107. doi: 10.1111/bju.12347.
  15. Tyritzis S.I., Collins J.W., Wiklund N.P. The current status of robot-assisted cystectomy. Indian J. Urol. 2018;34:101-109. doi: 10.4103/iju. IJU_355_17.
  16. Гулиев Б.Г., Комяков Б.К., Болотоков Р.Р. Робот-ассистированная радикальная цистэктомия с интракорпоральной ортотопической цистэктомией. Онкоурология. 2019;4:100-107). doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-2019-15-4-100-107.
  17. Гулиев Б.Г., Комяков Б.К., Болотоков Р.Р., Ал-Аттар Т.Х. Робот-ассистированная радикальная цистэктомия с ортотопической деривацией мочи. Урология. 2020;5:54-60). doi: 10.18565/urology.2020.5.54-60.
  18. Bertolo R., Agudelo J., Garisto J., Armanyous S., Fergany A., Kaouk J. Perioperative outcomes and complications after robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal or extracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion: head-to-head comparison from a single-institutional prospective study. Urology 2019;129:98-105. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.11.059.
  19. Muto S., Kitamura K., Ieda T., Shimizu F., Nagata M. et al. A preliminary oncologic outcome and postoperative complications in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy: initial experience. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58:171-178. doi: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.3.171.
  20. Nix J., Smith A., Kurpad R., Nielsen M.E., Wallen E.M., Ptuthi R.S. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol. 2010;7:196-201. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.10. 024.
  21. Комяков Б.К., Гулиев Б.Г., Сергеев В.А., Фадеев В.А., Ульянов А.Ю. и соавт. Выживаемость больных раком мочевого пузыря после радикальной цистэктомии. Онкоурология. 2016;12(1):29-35). doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-2016-12 1-29-35.
  22. Hayn M.H., Hussain A., Mansour A.M., Andrews P.E., Carpentier P. et al. The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol. 2010;58:197-202. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.024.
  23. Honore M., Roberts M.J., Morton A., Teloken P.E., Navaratnam A., Coudhlin G.D. Outcomes and learning curve for robot-assisted radical cystectomy: an Austrian experience. ANZ J. Surg. 2019;89(12):1593-1598. doi: 10.1111/ans.15413.
  24. Ahmed K., Khan S.A., Hayn M.H. et al. Analysis of intracorporeal compared with extracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-asisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 2014;65 (2):340-347. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.09.042.
  25. Borza T., Jacobs B.L., Montgomery J.S. Weizer A.Z., Morgan T.M. et al. No differences in populationbased readmissions after open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: implications for post-discharge care. Urology 2017;104:77-83. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2017.01.042.
  26. Xia L., Wang X., Xu T. et al. Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0121032.
  27. Hautmann R.E., de Petriconi R.C., Pfeiffer C., Volkmer B.G. Radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy: long-term results in 1100 patients. Eur. Urol. 2012;61:1039-1047. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.028.
  28. Dotan Z.A., Kavanagh K., Yossepowitch O. et al. Positive surgical margins in soft tissue following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and cancer specific survival. J. Urol. 2007;178:2308-2313. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.08.023.
  29. Bochner B.H., Dalbagni G., Marzouk K.H. et al. Randomized trial comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: oncologic outcomes. Eur. Urol. 2018;74:465-471. Doi: 10.1016/j. eururo.2018.04.030.
  30. Mantica G., Smelzo S., Ambrosini F., Tappero S., Parodi S. et al. Port-site metastasis and atypical recurrences after robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: an updated comprehensive and systematic review of current evidences. J. Robotic Surgery. 2020;14:805-812. doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01062-x.
  31. Nguyen D.P., Al Awamlh BAH, Wu. X. et al. Recurrence patterns after open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur. Urol. 2015;68:399-405. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.02.003.
  32. Wei L., Hussein A.A., Ma Y. et al. Accurate quantification of residual cancer cells in pelvic washing reveals association with cancer recurrence following robot-assisted radical cystectomy. J. Urol. 2019;201(6):1105-1114. doi: 10.1097/JU. 0000000000000142.
  33. Hussein A.A., Elsayed A.S., Aldhaam N.A., Jing Zh., Osei J. et al. Ten-year oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International robotic cystectomy consortium. J. Urol. 2019;202:927-935. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000386
  34. Лоран О.Б., Велиев Е.И., Серегин И.В., Серегин А.В., Лукьянов И.В. Осложнения радикальной цистэктомии с ортотопической цистопластиков мочевого пузыря. Анналы хирургии. 2017;22(2):97-103). doi: 10.18821/1560-9502-201722-2-97-103.
  35. Васильев О.Н., Перепечай В.А.,Рыжкин А.В. Ранние и поздние послеоперационные осложнения после радикальной цистэктомии при раке мочевого пузыря. Вестник урологии. 2019;7(2):24 - 50). doi: 10.21886/2308-6424-2019-7-2-24-50.
  36. Носов А.К., Рева С.А., Джалилов И.Б., Петров С.Б. Радикальная цистэктомия при раке мочевого пузыря: сравнение ранних хирургических осложнений при лапарокопической, открытой и видеоассистированной операции. Онкоурология. 2015;11(3):71-78). doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-2015-11-3-71-78.
  37. Перлин Д.В., Александров И.В., Зипунников В.П., Шманев А.О. Лапароскопическая радикальная цистэктомия: ключевые моменты. Онкоурология. 2018;14(1):136-143). doi: 10.17650/1726-9776-201814-1-136-143.
  38. Котов С.В., Хачатрян А.Л., Журавлева А.К., Саргсян Ш.М. Сравнительный анализ периоперативных результатов открытой и лапароскопической радикальной цистэктомии с формированием илеокондуита. Экспериментальная и клиническая урология. 2022;15(1):38-44). doi: 10.29188/2222-8543-2022-15-1-38-44.
  39. Ярмощук С.В., Кудрявцев А.С., Жеравин А.А., Дорбязгин Е.А., Архипов А.Н. Робот-ассистированная цистпростатэктомия при раке мочевого пузыря (первый опыт). Урология. 2016;6:132-135
  40. Лахно Д.А., Зингеренко М.Б., Газарян М.А., Хатьков И.Е. Робот-ассистированная радикальная цистэктомия: опыт первых 20 операций. Эндоскопическая хирургия. 2018;24(6):3-10. doi: 10.17116/endoskop2018240613.
  41. Урманцев М.Ф., Хакамов Т.Ш., Иткунов А.Ф., Гильманова Р.Ф. Случай выполнения радикальной робот-ассистированной цистэктомии с ортотопической цистопластикой по методу Studer. Креативная хирургия и онкология. 2020;10(1):5-9). doi: 10.24060/2076-3093-2020-10-1-5-9.
  42. Павлов В.Н., Урманцев М.Ф., Юдина Ю.В., Бакеев М.Р. Место робот-ассистированной цистэктомии в лечении мышечно-инвазивного рака мочевого пузыря. Урология. 2021;6:41-144. doi: 10.18565/urology.2021.6.141-144.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2022 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies