Search

Objective: To evaluate the outcomes and factors affecting success of urethroplasty in patients with stricture recurrence after Urolume urethral stent., Material and Methods: This is a retrospective international multicenter study on patients treated with urethral reconstruction after Urolume stent. Stricture and stent length, time between urethral stent insertion and urethroplasty, age, mode of stent retrieval, type of urethroplasty, complications and baseline, and posturethroplasty voiding parameters were analyzed. Successful outcome was defined as standard voiding, without need of any postoperative adjunctive procedure., Results: Sixty-three patients were included. Stent was removed at urethroplasty in 61 patients. Reconstruction technique was excision and primary anastomosis in 14 (22.2%), dorsal onlay buccal mucosa graft (BMG) in 9 (14.3%), ventral onlay BMG in 6 (9.5%), dorsolateral onlay BMG in 9 (14.3%), ventral onlay plus dorsal inlay BMG in 3 (4.8%), augmented anastomosis in 5 (7.9%), pedicled flap urethroplasty in 6 (9.5%), 2-stage procedure in 4 (6.4%), and perineal urethrostomy in 7(11.1%). Success rate was 81% at a mean 59.7 ± 63.4 months. Dilatation or internal urethrotomy was performed in 10 (15.9%) and redo-urethroplasty in 5 (7.9%). Total International Prostate Symptom Score, quality of life, urine maximum flow, and postvoid residual significantly improved (P <.0001). Complications occurred in 8 (12.7%), all Clavien-Dindo ≤2. Disease-free survival rate after reconstruction was 88.1%, 79.5%, and 76.7% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Explant of individual strands followed by onlay BMG is the most common approach and was significantly advantageous over the other techniques (P = .018)., Conclusion: Urethroplasty in patients with Urolume urethral stents is a viable option of reconstruction with a high success rate and very acceptable complication rate. Numerous techniques are viable; however, urethral preservation, tine-by-tine stent extraction, and use of BMG augmentation produced significantly better outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe the technique and report outcomes of laparoscopic radical cystectomy using 2 ports (2-port LRC) for muscle-invasive bladder cancer., Patients and Methods: Prospective study was performed between November 2011 and October 2012 to standardize 2-port LRC, lymph node dissection, and urinary diversion. Twenty patients were intervened (8 ileal conduit, 12 neobladder) and followed up for >1 yr. Median follow-up was 75.5 weeks (interquartile range, 65.2-86 weeks). A reusable system placed through the umbilicus and laparoscopic curved instruments with double rotation, plus one 10-mm extra port placed in the right iliac fossa were used. Neobladder or conduit was performed extracorporeally. Preoperative, perioperative, and pathologic outcomes and long-term security data are presented., Results: Median age was 69.5 years; body mass index, 27.4 kg/m(2); operative time, 335 minutes; estimated blood loss, 337 mL; hospital stay, 9 days; intraoperative transfusion rate, 10%; and visual analog pain score, 3 at day 3. Surgical margin was positive in a case (5%); 3 (15%) were pT0, 2 (10%) pT1, 5 (25%) pT2, 6 (30%) pT3a, 3 (15%) pT3b, and 1 (5%) pT4. The number of nodes removed was 18.5 (interquartile range, 16-29.2), 4 (20%) positive. Complications were major in 2 (10%; fecal peritonitis and urinary sepsis) and minor in 4 (20%; ileus and 3 postoperative transfusion) cases. No case required additional analgesia. Incision was totally hidden in the umbilicus. Continence rate in neobladders was 91.7% at daytime and 75% at nighttime. Study limitation was the absence of a comparative cohort., Conclusion: Umbilical 2-port LRC is feasible with good oncologic and functional outcomes, low postoperative pain, and absence of abdominal wall complications. Difficulties have slowed laparoendoscopic single-site radical cystectomy, but umbilical 2-port LRC is a very acceptable alternative for minimally invasive surgery of muscle-invasive bladder cancer., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)