Stapled versus robot-sewn ileo-ileal anastomosis during robot-assisted radical cystectomy: a review of outcomes in urinary bladder cancer patients
2021 (English)In: Scandinavian journal of urology, ISSN 2168-1805, E-ISSN 2168-1813, Vol. 55, no 1, p. 41-45Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]
BackgroundWhereas the literature has demonstrated an acceptable safety profile of stapled anastomoses when compared to the hand-sewn alternative in open surgery, the choice of intestinal anastomosis using sutures or staples remains inadequately investigated in robotic surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of both anastomotic techniques in robotic-assisted radical cystectomy.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients with urinary bladder cancer undergoing cystectomy with urinary diversion and with ileo-ileal intestinal anastomosis at a single tertiary centre (2012–2018) was undertaken. The robotic operating time, hospital stay and GI complications were compared between the robotic-sewn (RS) and stapled anastomosis (SA) groups. The only difference between the groups was the anastomosis technique; the other technical steps during the operation were the same. Primary outcomes were GI complications; the secondary outcome was robotic operation time.ResultsThere were 155 patients, of which 112 (73%) were male. The median age was 71 years old. A surgical stapling device was used to create 66 (43%) separate anastomoses, while a robot-sewn method was employed in 89 (57%) anastomoses. There were no statistically significant differences in primary and secondary outcomes between RS and SA.ConclusionsCompared to stapled anastomosis, a robot-sewn ileo-ileal anastomosis may serve as an alternative and cost-saving approach.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2021. Vol. 55, no 1, p. 41-45
Keywords [en]
Surgical anastomosis; surgical stapler; hand-sewn; bladder cancer; robotic surgery
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-171700DOI: 10.1080/21681805.2020.1843534ISI: 000587846500001PubMedID: 33169655Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85095826729OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-171700DiVA, id: diva2:1505288
Note
Funding Agencies|FoU grant from the County Council of Ostergotland, Linkoping, Sweden; ALF research grant from the County Council of Ostergotland, Linkoping, Sweden
2020-11-302020-11-302021-04-15Bibliographically approved