Robotic-assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation: a multicentre comparison.
Robotic surgery
Ureteral injury
Ureteral reimplantation
Urinoma
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Mar 2024
26 Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
02
05
2023
accepted:
09
02
2024
medline:
26
3
2024
pubmed:
26
3
2024
entrez:
26
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Open ureteral reimplantation is considered the standard surgical approach to treat distal ureteral strictures or injuries. These procedures are increasingly performed in a minimally invasive and robotic-assisted manner. Notably, no series comparing perioperative outcomes and safety of the open vs. robotic approach are available so far. In this retrospective multi-center study, we compared data from 51 robotic ureteral reimplantations (RUR) with 79 open ureteral reimplantations (OUR). Both cohorts were comparatively assessed using different baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes. Moreover, a multivariate logistic regression for independent predictors was performed. Surgery time, length of hospital stay and dwell time of bladder catheter were shorter in the robotic cohort, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion rate and postoperative complications were lower than in the open cohort. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, robotic approach was an independent predictor for a shorter operation time (coefficient - 0.254, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.342 to - 0.166; p < 0.001), a lower estimated blood loss (coefficient - 0.390, 95% CI - 0.549 to - 0.231, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (coefficient - 0.455, 95% CI - 0.552 to - 0.358, p < 0.001). Moreover, robotic surgery was an independent predictor for a shorter dwell time of bladder catheter (coefficient - 0.210, 95% CI - 0.278 to - 0.142, p < 0.001). RUR represents a safe alternative to OUR, with a shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Prospective research are needed to further define the extent of the advantages of the robotic approach over open surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38530438
doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04875-9
pii: 10.1007/s00345-024-04875-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
194Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Burks FN, Santucci RA (2014) Management of iatrogenic ureteral injury. Ther Adv Urol 6(3):115–124
doi: 10.1177/1756287214526767
pubmed: 24883109
pmcid: 4003841
Gellhaus PT et al (2015) Robotic management of genitourinary injuries from obstetric and gynaecological operations: a multi-institutional report of outcomes. BJU Int 115(3):430–436
doi: 10.1111/bju.12785
pubmed: 24750903
Smith AP, Bazinet A, Liberman D (2019) Iatrogenic ureteral injury after gynecological surgery. Can Urol Assoc J 13(6 Suppl4):S51–S55
pubmed: 31194927
pmcid: 6565405
Kitrey ND, C-JF (2022) EAU Guidelines on Urological Trauma 2022. EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, p. 52.
Lang IJ, Fisch M, Kluth LA (2018) Diagnostic and therapeutic concepts for vesicovaginal and ureterovaginal fistulas. Aktuelle Urol 49(1):83–91
doi: 10.1055/s-0043-125318
pubmed: 29390221
Olsson CA, Norlen LJ (1986) Combined Boari bladder flap-psoas bladder hitch procedure in ureteral replacement. Scand J Urol Nephrol 20(4):279–284
doi: 10.3109/00365598609024512
pubmed: 3810057
Smith JA, Howards SS, Preminger GM (2012), Hinman's atlas of urologic surgery. Philadelphia
Reddy PK, Evans RM (1994) Laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy. J Urol 152(6 Pt 1):2057–2059
doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)32306-6
pubmed: 7966672
Rassweiler JJ et al (2007) Ureteral reimplantation for management of ureteral strictures: a retrospective comparison of laparoscopic and open techniques. Eur Urol 51(2):512–522 (discussion 522-3)
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.004
pubmed: 16949730
White C, Stifelman M (2020) Ureteral Reimplantation, Psoas Hitch, and Boari Flap. J Endourol 34(S1):S25–S30
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0750
pubmed: 32459151
Lim S et al (2017) Laparoscopic suturing as a barrier to broader adoption of laparoscopic surgery. JSLS 21(3):e2017.00021
doi: 10.4293/JSLS.2017.00021
pubmed: 28694682
pmcid: 5491803
Pugh J, Farkas A, Su LM (2015) Robotic distal ureterectomy with psoas hitch and ureteroneocystostomy: Surgical technique and outcomes. Asian J Urol 2(2):123–127
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2015.04.017
pubmed: 29264130
pmcid: 5730748
Kumar S et al (2021) Robot-assisted laparoscopic repair of injuries to bladder and ureter following gynecological surgery and obstetric injury: a single-center experience. Urol Ann 13(4):405–411
doi: 10.4103/UA.UA_69_20
pubmed: 34759654
pmcid: 8525486
Gala RB et al (2014) Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 21(3):353–361
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.11.010
pubmed: 24295923
Vasudevan V et al (2016) Clinical outcomes and cost-benefit analysis comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal surgeries. Surg Endosc 30(12):5490–5493
doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4910-1
pubmed: 27126626
Baracy MG Jr et al (2022) Minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications-surgical volume matters: a retrospective cohort study comparing complications of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic hysterectomies. J Robot Surg 16(5):1199–1207
doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01340-2
pubmed: 34981444
Sanford DE (2019) An update on technical aspects of cholecystectomy. Surg Clin North Am 99(2):245–258
doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2018.11.005
pubmed: 30846033
Sakland M (1941) Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology 2(3):281–284
doi: 10.1097/00000542-194105000-00004
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM (1992) Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery 111(5):518–526
pubmed: 1598671
Carson JL et al (2021) Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12(12):CD002042
pubmed: 34932836
Ding G et al (2021) Experience managing distal ureteral strictures with Boari flap-psoas hitch and comparison of open and laparoscopic procedures. Transl Androl Urol 10(1):56–65
doi: 10.21037/tau-20-789
pubmed: 33532296
pmcid: 7844529
Dehlaghi Jadid K et al (2022) Long term oncological outcomes for laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer – A population-based nationwide noninferiority study. Colorectal Dis 24(11):1308–1317
doi: 10.1111/codi.16204
pubmed: 35656573
pmcid: 9796648
Chandra V et al (2010) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 147(6):830–839
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.11.002
pubmed: 20045162
Hemal AK et al (2010) Experience with robot assisted laparoscopic surgery for upper and lower benign and malignant ureteral pathologies. Urology 76(6):1387–1393
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.01.044
pubmed: 20350753
Kidd LC et al (2021) A multi-institutional experience with robotic vesicovaginal and ureterovaginal fistula repair after iatrogenic injury. J Endourol 35(11):1659–1664
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0993
pubmed: 33787314
Aguilera A et al (2019) Ureteral injury during abdominal and pelvic surgery: immediate versus deferred repair. Cent European J Urol 72(3):312–318
pubmed: 31720036
pmcid: 6830481
Kaye DR et al (2015) Robotic surgery in urological oncology: patient care or market share? Nat Rev Urol 12(1):55–60
doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2014.339
pubmed: 25535000
Woods DL et al (2015) Carbon footprint of robotically-assisted laparoscopy, laparoscopy and laparotomy: a comparison. Int J Med Robot 11(4):406–412
doi: 10.1002/rcs.1640
pubmed: 25708320