Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Ureteroneocystotomy for Benign and Malignant Ureteral Lesions: A Comparison of Over 100 Minimally Invasive Cases
Introduction: Laparoscopic (LAP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) approaches have been applied to ureteroneocystostomies (UNC) although such experience has been limited to a small number of patients and limited follow-up. Herein, we detail our experience with over 100 minimally invasive UNC, the largest such series to date. Methods: All minimally invasive UNC performed at our institution between 1997 and 2013 and all open UNC performed between 2008 and 2013 were identified. Perioperative parameters of relevance were identified and recorded. Chi-squared and ANOVA with post hoc Tukey analysis were performed for all categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Results: A total of 130 patients met our study criteria. One hundred five underwent the minimally invasive approach (20 RAL and 85 LAP). Mean follow-up duration was 504 days. Patients in the RAL, LAP, and open cohorts were of similar age, gender and laterality distribution, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body-mass index, history of previous abdominal surgery, history of prior treatment for the ureteral lesion, and surgical indication (Table 1). Operative time was similar across all cohorts (235-257 minutes, p=0.123). Estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in the RAL and LAP cohorts (100 and 150 mL) compared to their open counterparts (300 mL, p=0.001) although a decrease in hematocrit was similar across all groups. Only four intraoperative complications (4.7%) and two (2.4%) conversions to open were identified in the LAP group, without statistical significance. No intraoperative complications or conversions were identified in the RAL or open cohorts. Median length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the minimally invasive cohorts compared to open (p < 0.002). Ninety-day readmission rates (18.8-20%), major complications (10-20%), and failure rates (5.9-16%) were highest in the open cohort although without statistical significance. Conclusion: RAL or LAP UNC is feasible, safe, and comparable to the open technique with some perioperative benefit in EBL, LOS, and stent duration.
School of Medicine