We strongly recommend extended radical lymphadenectomy to all patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer to remove all metastatic tumor deposits completely. The operation can be conducted in routine clinical practice and our data may serve as a guideline for future standardization and quality control of the procedure.
through a 5-6 cm suprapubic incision. Second, a different surgical team exteriorized the bowel through this incision and created a neobladder extracorporeally. Third, the neobladder was internalized, the incision closed and the primary surgeon completed the urethro-neovesical anastomosis with robotic assistance. RESULTSRRCP was carried out in 14 men and three women by the primary surgeon (M.M.). The form of urinary reconstruction was ileal conduit in three, a W-pouch with a serosallined tunnel in 10, a double-chimney or a Tpouch with a serosal-lined tunnel in two each. The mean operative duration for robotic radical cystectomy, ileal conduit and orthotopic neobladder were 140, 120 and 168 min, respectively. The mean blood loss was <150 mL. The number of lymph nodes removed was 4-27, with one patient having N1 disease. The margins of resection were free of tumour in all patients. CONCLUSIONSWe developed a technique for nerve-sparing RRCP using the da Vinci system which allows precise and rapid removal of the bladder with minimal blood loss. The bowel segment can be exteriorized and the most complex form of orthotopic bladder can be created through the incision used to deliver the cystectomy specimen. Performing this part of the operation extracorporeally reduced the operative duration.
Extra-institutional Funding: None. Context• The urinary reconstructive options available after radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer are discussed, as are the criteria for selection of the most appropriate diversion, and the outcomes and complications associated with different diversion options. Objective• To critically review the peer-reviewed literature on the function and oncological outcomes, complications, and factors influencing choice of procedure with urinary diversion after RC for bladder carcinoma. Evidence Acquisition• A Medline search was conducted to identify original articles, review articles, and editorials on urinary diversion in patients treated with RC. Searches were limited to the English language. • Keywords included: 'bladder cancer' , 'cystectomy' , 'diversion' , 'neobladder' , and 'conduit' . • The articles with the highest level of evidence were selected and reviewed, with the consensus of all of the authors of this paper. Evidence Synthesis• Both continent and incontinent diversions are available for urinary reconstruction after RC. In appropriately selected patients, an orthotopic neobladder permits the elimination of an external stoma and preservation of body image without compromising cancer control. However, the patient must be fully educated and committed to the labour-intensive rehabilitation process. He must also be able to perform self-catheterisation if necessary.• When involvement of the urinary outflow tract by tumour prevents the use of an orthotopic neobladder, a continent cutaneous reservoir may still offer the opportunity for continence albeit one that requires obligate self-catheterisation. • For patients who are not candidates for continent diversion, the ileal loop remains an acceptable and reliable option. Conclusions• Both continent and incontinent diversions are available for urinary reconstruction after RC.• Orthotopic neobladders optimally preserve body image, while continent cutaneous diversions represent a reasonable alternative.• Ileal conduits represent the fastest, easiest, least complication-prone, and most commonly performed urinary diversion.Keywords bladder cancer, outcome assessment (health care), patient selection, radical cystectomy, urinary bladder neoplasms, urinary diversion
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.