|
|
|
| Totally intracorporeal robot-assisted urinary diversion for bladder cancer (Part 1). Review and detailed characterization of ileal conduit and modified Indiana pouch |
Hugo Otaola-Arcaa,b,Rafael Coelhoc,Vipul R. Pateld,Marcelo Orvietoa,b,*( )
|
a Department of Urology, Clínica Alemana, Santiago, Chile
b School of Medicine, Clínica Alemana-Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
c Universidade de São Paulo Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil
d Department of Urology, AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, United States |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To review the most used robot-assisted cutaneous urinary diversion (CUD) after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and create a unified compendium of the different alternatives, including new consistent images Methods: A non-systematic review of the literature with the keywords “bladder cancer”, “cutaneous urinary diversion”, and “radical cystectomy” was performed. Results: Twenty-four studies of intracorporeal ileal conduit (ICIC) and two of intracorporeal Indiana pouch (ICIP) were included in the analysis. Regarding ICIC, the patients’ age ranged from 60 to 76 years. The operative time to perform a urinary diversion ranged from 60 to 133 min. The total estimated blood loss ranged from 200 to 1 117 mL. The rate of positive surgical margins ranged from 0% to 14.3%. Early minor and major complication rates ranged from 0% to 71.4% and from 0% to 53.4%, respectively. Late minor and major complication rates ranged from 0% to 66% and from 0% to 32%, respectively. Totally ICIP data are limited to one case report and one clinical series. Conclusion: The most frequent type of CUD is ICIC. Randomized studies comparing the performance of the different types of CUD, the performance in an intra- or extracorporeal manner, or the performance of a CUD versus orthotopic ileal neobladder are lacking in the literature. To this day, there are not enough quality data to determine the supremacy of one technique. This manuscript represents a compendium of the most used CUD with detailed descriptions of the technical aspects, operative and perioperative outcomes, and new consistent images for each technique.
|
|
Received: 23 December 2019
Available online: 20 January 2021
|
|
Corresponding Authors:
Marcelo Orvieto
E-mail: morvieto@alemana.cl
|
|
|
| Study characteristics | Baseline and operative data | Complications | | Study | Year | Number of patients | Type of ICUD | Age (year) | Males (%) | Total OT (min) | ICUD OT (min) | EBL (mL) | PSM (%) | F-UP (month) | Early (<30 days) | Late (31-90 days) | | Clavien <III | Clavien ≥III | Clavien <III | Clavien ≥III | | Yohannes et al. [47] a | 2003 | 2 | IC | 60? | 100.0 | 660? | NA | 1 117? | 0.0 | NA | 0.0 | 0.0 | NA | NA | | Balaji et al. [48] a | 2004 | 3 | IC | 73? | 66.6 | 691? | NA | 250? | NA | 4.5? | 33.0 | 0.0 | NA | NA | | Guru et al. [23] a | 2010 | 13 | IC | 71? | 84.6 | 375? | NA | 200? | 0.0 | NA | 15.3 | 15.3 | NA | NA | | Pruthi et al. [27] b | 2010 | 12 | IC (75%)
Studer “U” (25%) | 60? | 75.0 | 318? | NA | 221? | NA | Min: 3 | 41.6 | 0.0 | 16.6 | 0.0 | | Rehman et al. [49] a | 2011 | 9 | IC | 74? | 66.6 | 346? | 72? | 258? | NA | NA | 0.0 | 11.1 | NA | NA | | Jonsson et al. [33] c | 2011 | 45 | IC (20%)
Studer “U” (80%) | 73?
60? | 55.0
91.6 | 460?
480? | NA | 350?
480? | 2.2 | 32.0?
24.0? | 11.1
19.4 | 33.3
8.3 | 11.1
16.6 | 22.2
13.8 | | Schumacher et al. [40] a | 2011 | 48 | IC (20%)
Studer “U” (80%) | 62? | 84.4 | 477? | NA | 550? | 2.2 | 24.0? | 17.7 | 22.2 | 13.3 | 17.8 | | Kang et al. [28] b | 2012 | 4 | IC (65%)
Camey (35%)
URS (5%) | 69.5? | 75.0 | 510?
585?
NA | NA | 400?
500? | 0.0
0.0 | Min: 3 | 25.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Goh et al. [36] c | 2012 | 15 | IC (46.7%)
Studer “U” (53.3%) | 69?
63? | 100.0
75.0 | 450?
450? | NA | 200?
225? | 0.0
0.0 | 3.3?
3.0? | 71.4
62.5 | 0.0
25.0 | 14.2
0.0 | 0.0
12.5 | | Canda et al. [41] a | 2012 | 27 | IC (7.4%)
Studer “U” (92.6%) | 61.4? | 92.5 | 594? | NA | 429? | 3.7 | 6.3? | 33.3 | 14.8 | 14.8 | 11.1 | | Azzouni et al. [50] a | 2013 | 100 | IC | 71? | 73.0 | 352? | 123? | 300? | 4.0 | 12.3? | 50.0 | 13.0 | 66.0 | 15.0 | | Collins et al. [51] a | 2013 | 113 | IC (38%)
Studer “U” (62%) | 69.9?
59.8? | 74.4
88.5 | 292?
420? | NA | 200?
500? | 11.6
1.5 | 4.0?
30.0? | 32.5
12.8 | 53.4
31.4 | 0.0
14.2 | 23.2
21.4 | | Desai et al. [37] c | 2014 | 37 | IC (51%)
Studer “U” (49%) | 75?
62? | 84.0
72.0 | 386?
387? | 92?
124? | 250?
200? | 10.0
0.0 | 16.0?
12.0? | 42.0
67.0 | 27.0
6.0 | 47.0
67.0 | 32.0
17.0 | | Abreu et al. [38] c | 2014 | 103 | IC (55%)
Studer “U” (45%) | 72?
60? | 75.0
89.0 | 396?
462? | NA | 250?
200? | 7.0
0.0 | NA | 42.0
41.0 | 23.0
21.0 | NA | NA | | Sim et al. [52] a | 2015 | 101 | IC (28%)
Studer “U” (72%) | 76.1?
62.1? | 89.3
78.0 | 350?
452? | 133?
178? | 347?
347? | 14.3
6.8 | 22.5?
32.4? | 21.4
28.7 | 14.2
27.3 | 0.0
1.3 | 7.1
15.0 | | Koupparis et al. [29] b | 2015 | 102 | IC (11%)
Studer “U” (89%) | 68.2? | 69.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Early and late Clavien <III: 23.0
Early and late Clavien ≥III: 9.0 | | Porreca et al. [39] c | 2018 | 24 | IC (46%)
Studer “U” (54%) | 68? | 91.7 | 370?
410? | 106?
172? | 390?
440? | 9.0
0.0 | 6.5?
6.0? | 9.0
15.3 | 0.0
7.6 | 0.0
30.7 | 0.0
7.6 | | Chow et al. [30] b | 2018 | 26 | IC (81%)
Studer “U” (15%) | 70? | 80.0 | 362? | NA | 300? | 4.0 | NA | Early and late Clavien <III: 62.2
Early and late Clavien ≥III: 19.0 | | Lenfant et al. [31] b | 2018 | 74 | IC (47%)
Studer “U” (53%) | 65? | 81.1 | 320? | NA | 400? | 8.1 | 15.0? | 37.8 | 9.4 | 6.7 | 12.1 | | Hussein et al. [32] b | 2018 | 1094 | IC (78.8%)
ONB (21.1) | 67? | 71.0 | 357? | NA | 300? | 7.0 | 11.0? | Early and late Clavien <III: 39.0
Early and late Clavien ≥III: 11.0 | | Tan et al. [53] a | 2019 | 59 | IC | 69? | 79.0 | 330? | 120? | 300? | 8.5 | 4.0? | 50.8 | 8.4 | 3.3 | 8.4 | | Bertolo et al. [54] a | 2019 | 60 | IC | 69? | 77.0 | 420? | NA | 380? | 5.0 | 18? | 20.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 1.6 | | Porreca et al. [42] a | 2020 | 100 | URS (17%)
IC (32%)
Studer “U” (51%) | 69? | 90.0 | 410? | 60?
120?
180? | 200? | 3.0 | 14.0? | 25.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 | 10.0 | | Brassetti et al. [43] a | 2020 | 113 | IC (43%)
Studer “U” or Padua (57%) | 69? | 82.0 | 382? | NA | NA | 8.0 | NA | Clavien ≥III: 20.0 | | Goh et al. [45] a | 2015 | 1 | Indiana pouch | NA | NA | NA | 180? | NA | NA | 12? | 100.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | | Desai et al. [46] a | 2017 | 10 | Indiana pouch | 68? | 80.0 | 369? | 210? | 225? | 0.0 | 13.7? | 40.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 20.0 |
|
|
Study characteristics baseline and operative data, and complications after robot-assisted intracorporeal ileal conduit and Indiana Pouch.
|
|
|
Schematic figure demonstrating the step-by-step creation of a robot-assisted ileal conduit (Adapted from Medina et al. [22]). (A) Port configuration: Four robotic and two assistant ports. (B) Identification of the bowel segment. A segment of 15-20 cm of the ileum 20-30 cm away from the ileocecal valve is identified. (C) Division of the bowel segment and bowel continuity restoration. The distal and proximal parts of the identified bowel segment are divided with a 60 mm Endo-GIA? stapler. A side-to-side bowel anastomosis is performed in two steps (C-1 and C-2) above the mesentery of the IC with a 60 mm Endo-GIA? stapler to restore bowel continuity. (D) Bricker's uretero-ileal anastomosis and stoma creation. An end-to-side anastomosis is performed between the ureters and the ileal conduit in either continuous or interrupted fashion (D-1 and D-2) [3]. For the creation of the stoma (D-3), first the ileal conduit is anchored in the base by the four fascial sutures; Second, the stoma is matured.
|
|
|
Schematic figure demonstrating the step-by-step creation of a robot-assisted Indiana Pouch (Adapted from Aron et al. [25]). (A) Port configuration. Seven robotic ports are used for creating a robotic Indiana pouch. (B) Identification and division of the bowel segment. A segment of 10 cm of the terminal ileum and 25 cm of the right colon are isolated and divided with a 60 mm Endo-GIA? stapler. (C) Appendectomy and detubularization of the isolated colonic segment. The cecal appendix is excised, and the colonic segment is detubularized along the antimesenteric surface, preserving the cecal cap intact. (D) Urethro-colonic anastomosis. After passing the ureters through full-thickness incisions in the posterior wall of the right colon, they are anastomosed in an end-to-side fashion. (E) Closure of the pouch. The colonic plate is folded into the shape of an inverted U, and the adjacent edges of the colon are sutured. (F) Tailoring of the efferent limb and stoma creation. The efferent limb is tapered along the antimesenteric border, and the ileocecal valve is buttressed. Finally, the efferent limb is exteriorized, and a catheterizable stoma at the umbilicus is created.
|
| Study | Type of UD | Baseline and operative data | Complications | | IC (n) | ONB (n) | Age (year) | Males (% or proportion) | Total OT (min) | UD OT (min) | EBL (mL) | PSM (%) | F-UP (month) | Total (%) | Clavien ≥ III (%) | | Pruthi et al. [27] | ICUD | 9 | 3 | 60.9? | 9:3 | 318?? | NA | 221? | NA | NA | 41.6 | 8.3 | | ECUD | 13 | 7 | 66.9? | 7:3 | 252?? | NA | 266? | NA | NA | 50.0 | 10.0 | | Kang et al. [28] | ICUD | 3 | 1 | 69.5? | 3:1 | 510?? | 201?? | 400.3? | 0 | NA | 25 | 0 | | ECUD | 22 | 14 | 62.2? | 35:3 | 410?? | 119?? | 370.1? | 2.6 | NA | 42.1 | 21.1 | | Koupparis et al. [29] | ICUD | 91 | 11 | 68.2? | 71:31 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 31 | NA | | ECUD | 144 | 24 | 65.9? | 33:9 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 46 | NA | | Chow et al. [30] | ICUD | 21 | 4 | 70? | 21:5 | 362?? | NA | 300?? | 4 | NA | 81 | 19 | | ECUD | 13 | 0 | 75? | 10:3 | 240?? | NA | 200?? | 8 | NA | 62 | 23 | | Lenfant et al. [31] | ICUD | 35 | 39 | 65? | 30:7 | 320? | NA | 400?? | 8.1 | 15?? | 66.2 | 21.6 | | ECUD | 28 | 6 | 68? | 16:1 | 285? | NA | 500?? | 5.9 | 28?? | 67.6 | 23.5 | | Hussein et al. [32] | ICUD | 1?094 | 67.0? | 71? | 357?? | NA | 300?? | 7 | 11? | 58? | 13? | | ECUD | 1?031 | 68.0? | 81? | 400?? | NA | 350?? | 7 | 17? | 43? | 10? |
|
|
Non-randomized studies comparing intra versus extracorporeal urinary diversions.
|
| [1] |
Cancer today. [accessed 02 July 2019]. http://gco.iarc.fr/today/home.
pmid: 10182895
|
| [2] |
Witjes JA, Bruins M, Cathomas R, Compérat E, Cowan NC, Gakis G, et al. EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. [Accessed 2 July 2019]. https://uroweb.org/guideline/bladder-cancer-muscle-invasive-andmetastatic/;2019.
|
| [3] |
Simon JJ. Extrophia vesicae (absence of the anterior walls of the bladder and pubic abdominal parietes); operation for directing the orifices of the ureters into the rectum; temporary success; subsequent death; autopsy Lancet 1852; 2:568-70.
|
| [4] |
Hinman F, Weyrauch HJ. A critical study of the different principles of surgery which have been used in ureterointestinal implantation. Trans Am Assoc Genito-urin Surg 1936; 29:15-156.
|
| [5] |
Leadbetter WF. Consideration of problems incident to performance of uretero-enterostomy: report of a technique. J Urol 1951; 65:818-30.
|
| [6] |
Goodwin WE, Harris AP, Kaufman JJ, Beal JM. Open, transcolonic ureterointestinal anastomosis; a new approach. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1953; 97:295-300.
|
| [7] |
Leadbetter WF, Clarke BG. Five years’ experience with uretero-enterostomy by the combined technique. J Urol 1955; 73:67-82.
|
| [8] |
Clarke BG, Leadbetter WF. Ureterosigmoidostomy: collective review of results in 2897 reported cases. J Urol 1955; 73:999-1008.
|
| [9] |
Ridlon HC. Ureterosigmoidostomy: a comparison of two techniques. J Urol 1963; 89:167-70.
|
| [10] |
Wear JB, Barquin OP. Ureterosigmoidostomy. Long-term results. Urology 1973; 1:192-200.
|
| [11] |
Bricker EM. Bladder substitution after pelvic evisceration. Surg Clin 1950; 30:1511-21.
|
| [12] |
Gilchrist RK, Merricks JW, Hamlin HH, Rieger IT. Construction of a substitute bladder and urethra. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1950; 90:752-60.
|
| [13] |
Eckman H, Jacobsson B, Kock NG, Sundin T. The functional behavior of different types of intestinal bladder substitutes. Contrib Soc Int Urol 1964; 11:213-9.
|
| [14] |
Kock NG, Nilson AE, Nilsson LO, Norlén LJ, Philipson BM. Urinary diversion via a continent ileal reservoir: clinical results in 12 patients. J Urol 1982; 128:469-75.
|
| [15] |
Lieskovsky G, Boyd SD, Skinner DG. Management of late complications of the Kock pouch form of urinary diversion. J Urol 1987; 137:1146-50.
|
| [16] |
Rowland RG. Complications of continent cutaneous reservoirs and neobladders: series using contemporary techniques. AUA Update Series 1995; 14:201-15.
|
| [17] |
Kozminski M, Partamian K. Case report of laparoscopic ileal loop conduit. J Endourol 1992; 6:147-50.
|
| [18] |
Gill IS, Fergany A, Klein EA, Kaouk JH, Sung GT, Meraney AM, et al. Laparoscopic radical cystoprostatectomy with ileal conduit performed completely intracorporeally: the initial 2 cases. Urology 2000; 56:26-30.
|
| [19] |
Potter SR, Charambura TC, Adams JB, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic ileal conduit: five-year follow-up. Urology 2000; 56:22-5.
|
| [20] |
Collins JW, Patel H, Adding C, Annerstedt M, Dasgupta P, Khan SM, et al. Enhanced recovery after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: EAU robotic Urology section scientific working group consensus view. Eur Urol 2016; 70:649-60.
|
| [21] |
Donahue TF, Bochner BH. Complications of ileal conduit diversion. In: Daneshmand S, editor. Urinary diversion. Switzerland: Springer; 2017. p. 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52186-2.
|
| [22] |
Medina LG, Baccaglini W, Hernández A, Rajarubendra N, Winter M, Ashrafi AN, et al. Robotic intracorporeal ileal conduit: technical aspects. Arch Esp Urol 2019; 72:299-308.
|
| [23] |
Guru K, Seixas-Mikelus SA, Hussain A, Blumenfeld AJ, Nyquist J, Chandrasekhar R, et al. Robot-assisted intracorporeal ileal conduit: Marionette technique and initial experience at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Urology 2010; 76:866-71.
|
| [24] |
Guru KA, Mansour AM, Nyquist J. Robot-assisted intracorporeal ileal conduit “Marionette” technique. BJU Int 2010; 106:1404-20.
|
| [25] |
Aron M, Chopra S, Desai MM. Robotic continent cutaneous diversion: Indiana pouch in chapter 59. Robotic urinary diversion. In: Smith J, Howards S, Preminger G, Dmochowski R, editors. Hinman’s atlas of urologic surgery. 4th ed., vol. 59. Philadephia: Elsevier; 2016. Online version. eBook ISBN: 9780323392303.
|
| [26] |
Rowland RG, Mitchell ME, Bihrle R, Kahnoski RJ, Piser JE. Indiana continent urinary reservoir. J Urol 1987; 137:1136-9.
|
| [27] |
Pruthi RS, Nix J, McRackan D, Hickerson A, Nielsen ME, Raynor M, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic intracorporeal urinary diversion. Eur Urol 2010; 57:1013-21.
|
| [28] |
Kang SG, Ko YH, Jang HA, Kim J, Kim SH, Cheon J, et al. Initial experience of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with total intracorporeal urinary diversion: comparison with extracorporeal method. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 2012; 22:456-62.
|
| [29] |
Koupparis A, Villeda-Sandoval C, Weale N, El-Mahdy M, Gillatt D, Rowe E. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion: impact on an established enhanced recovery protocol. BJU Int 2015; 116:924-31.
|
| [30] |
Chow K, Zargar H, Corcoran NM, Costello AJ, Peters JS, Dundee P. Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion versus open: early Australian experience. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88:1028-32.
|
| [31] |
Lenfant L, Verhoest G, Campi R, Parra J, Graffeille V, Masson- Lecomte A, et al. Perioperative outcomes and complications of intracorporeal vs. extracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a reallife, multi-institutional French study. World J Urol 2018; 36:1711-8.
|
| [32] |
Hussein AA, May PR, Jing Z, Ahmed YE, Wijburg CJ, Canda AE, et al. Outcomes of intracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the international robotic cystectomy consortium. J Urol 2018; 199:1302-11.
|
| [33] |
Jonsson MN, Adding LC, Hosseini A, Schumacher MC, Volz D, Nilsson A, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion in patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol 2011; 60:1066-73.
|
| [34] |
Hosseini A, Adding C, Nilsson A, Jonsson MN, Wiklund NP. Robotic cystectomy: surgical technique. BJU Int 2011; 108:962-8.
|
| [35] |
Wiklund NP, Poulakis V. Robotic neobladder. BJU Int 2011; 107:1514-37.
|
| [36] |
Goh AC, Gill IS, Lee DJ, de Castro Abreu AL, Fairey AS, Leslie S, et al. Robotic intracorporeal orthotopic ileal neobladder: replicating open surgical principles. Eur Urol 2012; 62:891-901.
|
| [37] |
Desai MM, de Abreu ALC, Goh AC, Fairey A, Berger A, Leslie S, et al. Robotic intracorporeal urinary diversion: technical details to improve time efficiency. J Endourol 2014; 28:1320-7.
|
| [38] |
Abreu AL, Chopra S, Azhar RA, Berger AK, Miranda G, Cai J, et al. Robotic radical cystectomy and intracorporeal urinary diversion: the USC technique. Indian J Urol 2014; 30:300-6.
|
| [39] |
Porreca A, Chessa F, Romagnoli D, Salvaggio A, Cafarelli A, Borghesi M, et al. Robot assisted radical cystectomy with totally intracorporeal urinary diversion: initial, single-surgeon’s experience after a modified modular training. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2018; 70:193-201.
|
| [40] |
Schumacher MC, Jonsson MN, Hosseini A, Nyberg T, Poulakis V, Pardalidis NP, et al. Surgery-related complications of robotassisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion. Urology 2011; 77:871-6.
|
| [41] |
Canda AE, Atmaca AF, Altinova S, Akbulut Z, Balbay MD. Robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical cystectomy with bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and intracorporeal urinary diversion for bladder cancer: initial experience in 27 cases. BJU Int 2012; 110:434-44.
|
| [42] |
Porreca A, Mineo Bianchi F, Romagnoli D, D’Agostino D, Corsi P, Giampaoli M, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with totally intracorporeal urinary diversion: surgical and early functional outcomes through the learning curve in a single high-volume center. J Robot Surg 2020; 14:261-9.
|
| [43] |
Brassetti A, Cacciamani G, Anceschi U, Ferriero M, Tuderti G, Miranda G, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes of robotassisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with totally intracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD): a multi-center study. World J Urol 2020; 38:837-43.
|
| [44] |
Nieuwenhuijzen JA, de Vries RR, Bex A, van der Poel HG, Meinhardt W, Antonini N, et al. Urinary diversions after cystectomy: the association of clinical factors, complications and functional results of four different diversions. Eur Urol 2008; 53:834-44.
|
| [45] |
Goh AC, Aghazadeh MA, Krasnow RE, Pastuszak AW, Stewart JN, Miles BJ. Robotic intracorporeal continent cutaneous urinary diversion: primary description. J Endourol 2015; 29:1217-20.
|
| [46] |
Desai MM, Simone G, de Castro Abreu AL, Chopra S, Ferriero M, Guaglianone S, et al. Robotic intracorporeal continent cutaneous diversion. J Urol 2017; 198:436-44.
|
| [47] |
Yohannes P, Puri V, Yi B, Khan AK, Sudan R. Laparoscopyassisted robotic radical cystoprostatectomy with ileal conduit urinary diversion for muscle-invasive bladder cancer: initial two cases. J Endourol 2003; 17:729-32.
|
| [48] |
Balaji KC, Yohannes P, McBride CL, Oleynikov D, Hemstreet GP. Feasibility of robot-assisted totally Review of the ileal conduit and modified Indiana pouch. intracorporeal laparoscopic ileal conduit urinary diversion: initial results of a single institutional pilot study. Urology 2004; 63:51-5.
|
| [49] |
Rehman J, Sangalli MN, Guru K, de Naeyer G, Schatteman P, Carpentier P, et al. Total intracorporeal robot-assisted laparoscopic ileal conduit (Bricker) urinary diversion: technique and outcomes. Can J Urol 2011; 18:5548-56.
|
| [50] |
Azzouni FS, Din R, Rehman S, Khan A, Shi Y, Stegemann A, et al. The first 100 consecutive, robot-assisted, intracorporeal ileal conduits: evolution of technique and 90-day outcomes. Eur Urol 2013; 63:637-43.
|
| [51] |
Collins JW, Tyritzis S, Nyberg T, Schumacher M, Laurin O, Khazaeli D, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: description of an evolved approach to radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 2013; 64:654-63.
|
| [52] |
Sim A, Balbay MD, Todenh?fer T, Aufderklamm S, Halalsheh O, Mischinger J, et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal urinary diversiondsafe and reproducible? Cent Eur J Urol 2015; 68:18-23.
|
| [53] |
Tan TW, Nair R, Saad S, Thurairaja R, Khan MS. Safe transition from extracorporeal to intracorporeal urinary diversion following robot-assisted cystectomy: a recipe for reducing operative time, blood loss and complication rates. World J Urol 2019; 37:367-72.
|
| [54] |
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.
|
| [1] |
Hugo Otaola-Arca,Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat,Vipul R. Patel,Marcio Covas Moschovas,Marcelo Orvieto. Totally intracorporeal robot-assisted urinary diversion for bladder cancer (part 2). Review and detailed characterization of the existing intracorporeal orthotopic ileal neobladder[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8(1): 63-80. |
| [2] |
Marcio Covas Moschovas,Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat,Cathy Jenson,Vipul R. Patel,Gabriel Ogaya-Pinies. Robtic-assisted radical cystectomy: Literature review[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8(1): 14-19. |
| [3] |
Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat,Marcio Covas Moschovas,Vipul R. Patel,Young Hwii Ko. The robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction in adult: A narrative review on the surgical techniques and contemporary outcomes[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2021, 8(1): 38-49. |
| [4] |
Tripathi Abhishek,Gupta Shilpa. Androgen receptor in bladder cancer: A promising therapeutic target[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2020, 7(3): 284-290. |
| [5] |
Xie Weibin,Bi Junming,Wei Qiang,Han Ping,Song Dongkui,Shi Lei,Ye Dingwei,Shen Yijun,Gou Xin,He Weiyang,Wang Shaogang,Liu Zheng,Fan Jinhai,Wu Kaijie,Chen Zhiwen,Zhou Xiaozhou,Kong Chuize,Liu Yang,Liu Chunxiao,Xu Abai,Jin Baiye,Fu Guanghou,Xue Wei,Chen Haige,Pan Tiejun,Tu Zhong,Lin Tianxin,Huang Jian. Survival after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Multicenter comparison between minimally invasive and open approaches[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2020, 7(3): 291-300. |
| [6] |
Guido Barbagli,Axel Heidenreich,Vahudin Zugor,Leonidas Karapanos,Massimo Lazzeri. Urothelial or oral mucosa cells for tissue-engineered urethroplasty: A critical revision of the clinical outcome[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2020, 7(1): 18-23. |
| [7] |
Sunny Goel,Rahul J. Sinha,Ved Bhaskar,Ruchir Aeron,Ashish Sharma,Vishwajeet Singh. Role of gemcitabine and cisplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle invasive bladder cancer: Experience over the last decade[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(3): 222-229. |
| [8] |
Yifan Chang,Xiaojun Lu,Qingliang Zhu,Chuanliang Xu,Yinghao Sun,Shancheng Ren. Single-port transperitoneal robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (spRALP): Initial experience[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2019, 6(3): 294-297. |
| [9] |
Gild Philipp,A. Kluth Luis,W. Vetterlein Malte,Engel Oliver,K.H. Chun Felix,Fisch Margit. Adult iatrogenic ureteral injury and stricture-incidence and treatment strategies[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2018, 5(2): 101-106. |
| [10] |
Ka Wing Wong, Terence Chun-ting Lai, Ada Tsui-lin Ng, Brian Sze-ho Ho, James Hok-leung Tsu, Chiu Fung Tsang, W. K. Ma, Ming Kwong Yiu. Anterior perineal hernia after anterior exenteration[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2017, 4(4): 253-255. |
| [11] |
Yu Guang Tan, Ernest Eu, Weber Lau Kam On, Hong Hong Huang. Pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts worse survival outcomes and advanced tumor staging in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2017, 4(4): 239-246. |
| [12] |
David J. McConkey, Woonyoung Choi, Andrea Ochoa, Colin P. N. Dinney. Intrinsic subtypes and bladder cancer metastasis[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2016, 3(4): 260-267. |
| [13] |
Wei Wang, Haitao Liu, Shujie Xia. Thulium laser treatment for bladder cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2016, 3(3): 130-133. |
| [14] |
Thomas Y. Hsueh, Allen W. Chiu. Narrow band imaging for bladder cancer[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2016, 3(3): 126-129. |
| [15] |
Kaiwen Li, Tianxin Lin, Chinese Bladder Cancer Consortium, Wei Xue, Xin Mu, Enci Xu, Xu Yang, Fubao Chen, Guangyong Li, Lulin Ma, Guoliang Wang, Chaozhao Liang, Haoqiang Shi, Ming Li, Mao Tang, Xueyi Xue, Yisong Lv, Yaoliang Deng, Chengyang Li, Zhiwen Chen, Xiaozhou Zhou, Fengshuo Jin, Xudong Liu, Jinxin Wei, Lei Shi, Xin Gou, Weiyang He, Liqun Zhou, Lin Cai, Liping Xie, Guanghou Fu, Xiangbo Kong, Hongyan Sun, Ye Tian, Lang Feng, Tiejun Pan, Yiyi Wu, Dongwen Wang, Hailong Hao, Benkang Shi, Yaofeng Zhu, Qiang Wei, Ping Han, Changli Wu, Dawei Tian, Zhangqun Ye, Zheng Liu, Zhiping Wang, Junqiang Tian, Lin Qi, Minfeng Chen, Wei Li, Jinchun Qi, Gongxian Wang, Longlong Fu, Zhaolin Sun, Guangheng Luo, Zhoujun Shen, Zhaowei Zhu, Jinchun Xing, Zhun Wu, Dong Wei, Xin Chen, Yanqun Na, Hongfeng Guo, Chunxi Wang, Zhihua Lu, Chuize Kong, Yang Liu, Jin Yang, Jianyun Hu, Xin Gao, Jielin Li, Changjun Yin, Pu Li, Shan Chen, Zhen Du, Jiongming Li, Yongji Yan, Xu Zhang, Shuang Huang, Fangjian Zhou, Zhiling Zhang, Yinghao Sun, Shuxiong Zeng, Song Cen, Jiaquan Zhou, Hanzhong Li, Jin Wen, Jian Huang. Current status of diagnosis and treatment of bladder cancer in China-Analyses of Chinese Bladder Cancer Consortium Database[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2015, 2(2): 63-69. |
|
|
|
|
