[Urethro-vesical anastomosis reconstruction using extra-peritoneal robot-assisted laparoscopy for anastomotic stenosis after radical prostatectomy]. / Réfection d'anastomose urétro-vésicale par voie extra-péritonéale laparoscopique robot-assistée pour sténose anastomotique post-prostatectomie radicale.

INTRODUCTION: Urethro-vesical anastomosis stenosis following radical prostatectomy is a rare complication but represents a challenging situation. While the first-line treatment is endoscopic, recurrences after urethrotomies require a radical approach. We present the updated results of our patient's cohort treated by pure robotic anastomosis refection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center study focusing on one surgeon's experience. Patients presented an urethro-vesical stricture following a radical prostatectomy. Each patient received at least one endoscopic treatment. The procedure consisted of a circumferential resection of the stenosis, followed by a re-anastomosis with well-vascularized tissue. We reviewed the outcomes in terms of symptomatic recurrences and continence after the reconstructive surgery. RESULTS: From April 2013 to May 2020, 8 patients underwent this procedure. Half of the patients had previously been treated with salvage radio-hormonotherapy. The median age was 70 years (64-76). The mean operative time was 109minutes (60-180) and blood loss was 120cc (50-250). One patient had an early postoperative complication, with vesico-pubic fistula. The average length of stay was 4.6 days (3-8). Mean follow-up was 24.25 months (1-66). Half of the patients experienced a recurrence at a median time of 8.25 months (6-11) after surgery. Five patients experienced incontinence of which 3 required an artificial urinary sphincter implantation. CONCLUSION: Extra-peritoneal robot-assisted urethro-vesical reconstruction is feasible and safe to manage bladder neck stricture after radical prostatectomy. The risk of postoperative incontinence is high, justifying preoperative information. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer in real life: Are urologists still too cautious?

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is now recommended to treat muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) but is not always executed in real life. This study aims to evaluate the proportion of patients with MIBC who receive an optimal NAC, and to present the predictive factors of its achievement. METHODS: This monocenter retrospective study included all the patients who underwent radical cystectomy for≥pT2NxM0 MIBC between 2013, January and 2018, December. NAC consisted in 4-6 cycles of MVAC (methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin) or 4 cycles of GC (gemcitabin, and carboplatin). Demographic (sex, age, ECOG-PS, glomerular filtration rate [GFR], and cN stage), surgical (urinary derivation, time of surgery, blood loss, and complications), and oncological characteristics were analyzed. Multivariate analysis are made to find predictors of administration of NAC. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients were included. Thirty received CNA (24%). Patients who underwent CNA were younger, with better ECOG and better GFR. Multivariate analysis showed that cN+ stage and better GFR were significantly associated to administration of NAC. Eight patients (27%) couldn't receive an optimal treatment due to toxicity. Perioperative complication rates were similar, with or without NAC. Patients who underwent NAC had a worse GFR after treatment (-17 versus +5mL/min, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Due to the risks of toxicity, NAC can only be proposed to selected population, which is not the current patients. Immunotherapy could allow to treat more patients because of better tolerance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.