Robotic Augmentation Cystoplasty: Outcome of the Anterior and Posterior Approaches

Résumé fourni par la source

Introduction: To describe the medium-term outcome of robotic augmentation ileocystoplasty by posterior and anterior approaches in the management of contracted low-capacity bladder from cystitis. Materials and Methods: Data on consecutive cases of robotic augmentation ileocystoplasty between 2011 and 2021 were prospectively collected and reviewed in our center. Retzius-sparing posterior approach was performed by anastomosis of an M-configuration small bowel plate to the posteriorly located U-shaped cystostomy. Conventional anterior augmentation ileocystoplasty was performed by anastomosis of an S-configuration small bowel plate to the anterior cystostomy. The procedure was as per conventional robotic pelvic surgery setting with the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Perioperative data and postoperative complications were assessed. Preoperative and postoperative functional outcomes were compared. Results: Six patients underwent posterior augmentation cystoplasty and 20 patients underwent anterior augmentation cystoplasty with a mean follow-up of 51 ± 26 months. Mean operative time was 274 ± 113 minutes and 267 ± 102 minutes, respectively ( p = 0.889), and mean hospital stay was 9.0 ± 9.6 days and 8.3 ± 6.1 days, respectively ( p = 0.831). Additional procedures include eight ureteral reimplantations and one ileal interposition. Mean functional bladder capacity (FBC) at 2 years of the two approaches were similar, which were 350.2 ± 126.3 mL (posterior approach) and 310.2 ± 151.4 mL (anterior approach) ( p = 0.5936). Overall, FBC before the operation and at 24 months was 68.9 ± 48.2 mL and 318.5 ± 144.8 mL ( p = <0.0001), respectively. Analgesic requirement was decreased after the operation (preoperative 19 patients, postoperative 4 patients; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Posterior approach of robotic augmentation ileocystoplasty provided an alternate option to expand the bladder capacity for patients with a small contracted bladder. It could provide a similar symptom relief and functional improvement as the anterior approach. The clinical trial number is CRE-2011.454.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.