The First 100 Consecutive, Robot-assisted, Intracorporeal Ileal Conduits: Evolution of Technique and 90-day Outcomes

Abstract Background Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has evolved over the last few years to become an acceptable alternative option to open radical cystectomy. Most series of RARC used an open approach to urinary diversion. Even though robot-assisted intracorporeal urinary diversion (RICUD) is the natural extension of RARC, few centers have reported their experiences with RICUD in general, and in particular, of robot-assisted intracorporeal ileal conduits (RICIC). Objective To report our experience with RICIC using the Marionette technique. Design, setting, and participants The first 100 consecutive patients who underwent RARC and RICIC, and had ≥3 mo of postoperative follow-up were included in this study. Patients were divided into four groups of 25 patients each to study the evolution of our surgical technique. Intervention RICIC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Intraoperative, pathologic, and 90-d postoperative outcomes for the four groups and the overall cohort were compared using the Fisher exact test (categorical variables) and the Kruskal-Wallis test (continuous variables). Continuous variables were reported as median (range) and categorical variables were specified as frequency (percentage). Results and limitations Overall operative and specific diversion times were 352 and 123 min, respectively. Estimated blood loss was 300 ml, lymph node yield was 24, and positive surgical margin rate was 4%. Length of hospital stay increased from 7 d for group 1 to 9 d for group 4. The overall 90-d complication rate was 81%; 19% of complications were high grade. Infections were the most common complications, representing 31% of all complications. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences except in diversion time, intraoperative transfusions, and length of stay. Conclusions RICIC diversion is safe, feasible, and reproducible. Larger series with longer follow-up are needed to validate the procedure and define its place in the minimally invasive urologic armamentarium. Quality of life studies need to be conducted to compare benefits of intracorporeal urinary diversion.