Robot-assisted intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion: A two-center comparative study of Bricker versus Wallace ureteroileal anastomosis.

INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to evaluate the differences in the perioperative results, renal function, and incidence of hydronephrosis over time between the use of Bricker anastomosis and Wallace anastomosis for robot-assisted intracorporeal ileal conduit urinary diversion (RICIC). METHODS: Fifty-five patients who underwent RICIC at two institutions were evaluated (Bricker, n = 23; Wallace, n = 32). We investigated changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate and hydronephrosis before surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: The patients in the Bricker group were significantly older than those in the Wallace group. The urinary diversion time was significantly longer in the Bricker group. No significant difference in postoperative renal function was observed. Additionally, no significant difference was observed in the incidence of postoperative hydronephrosis. However, the incidence of right hydronephrosis tended to be high overall, especially in the Wallace group. No patients in either group required repair surgery or ureteral stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing RICIC, there was no difference in postoperative renal function or the incidence of hydronephrosis between Wallace and Bricker anastomosis. Symptomatic hydronephrosis was not observed in either group. The present study showed that each method was equally effective and safe.

Lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A two-center comparative study of robotic versus open surgery.

INTRODUCTION: This study was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lymph node dissection (LND) during robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compared with open radical cystectomy (ORC). METHODS: From October 2003 to December 2021, 122 patients underwent LND during RARC and 103 patients underwent LND during ORC at Tokushima University Hospital and Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital. We investigated the safety and efficacy of LND during RARC by comparing the surgical and oncological outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: The patients were significantly older in the RARC than the ORC group. The operative time was significantly shorter and the estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the RARC than the ORC group. Although the lymph node yield was significantly higher in the RARC than the ORC group, there was no significant difference in lymph node positivity between the groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of local recurrence or distant metastasis between the two groups. The 5-year survival rates (overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and recurrence-free survival) were not different between the RARC and ORC groups. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the surgical and oncological safety and efficacy of LND during RARC are greater than those of LND during ORC. We believe that LND during RARC is a higher-quality procedure than LND during ORC.