Search

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate whether performing an ileal conduit (IC) versus a neobladder (NB) during radical cystectomy (RC) can play a role on the morbidity of the surgical procedure. Materials and Methods: At our institution since 2001, a database collecting the data of more than 450 patients who have undergone RC is perspectively maintained. The records of 246 patients submitted to RC and IC and 120 to RC and NB have been reviewed for the present study. By a binary logistic regression model, a propensity score was generated joining these factors: gender, age, smoking habit, Charlson' comorbidity score, platelet antiaggregants or oral anticoagulant therapy, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, hydronephrosis, pathologic T stage, and lymphadenectomy. A group of patients submitted to IC and another to NB having the closer propensity score were created with a matching ratio of 1:1. The following features were compared between the two groups: operative time, blood loss, intraoperative complication rate, and postoperative complications rate (overall, clavien 1-2, clavien ≥3, related to RC, relate to urinary reconstruction). Results: One hundred thirty-four patients were selected, 67 submitted to NB, 67 to IC, well matched according to the desired features. No differences were noted for all the compared features. Conclusion: The morbidity of RC does not seem to be dependent on the choice to perform IC versus NB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy is one of the most feared problems. It can affect almost 40% of patients, with different degrees of severity according to each specific case. The aim of this work is to analyze our experience in ProACT (Adjustable Continence Therapy) implants, especially in case of failure of other techniques. METHODS: Between November 2007 and December 2010, 31 patients with post-radical prostatectomy incontinence underwent a ProACT implant. Eight patients had their device explanted (in local anesthesia): in two cases the device spontaneously broke, three of them migrated in the urethra (one patient received radiation therapy), another one was infected in the device site (one in BCG treatment for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer), two devices were wrongly placed. Seven of these patients had had their device replaced with success. Using pad score, incontinence was classified as mild, moderate and severe. Overall, the total amount of procedures, most of them fluoroscopic-guided in spinal anesthesia, were 38; the average duration of the surgery was 37.6 minutes. In one patient with impaired balloon volume due to monolateral device malfunction, we noticed good results in controlling incontinence; therefore, we successfully applied the same technique in other four cases with previous partial results. RESULTS: With a total amount of 28 implants, we had 17 (60.7%) complete responses, 6 (25%) partial and 4 (14.3%) failures. We had 4 post-radiotherapy implants: one was completely dry, two were in balloon adjustment, and one of them had a replacement due to urethral erosion of the first implant. All patients with impaired balloon inflation were satisfied: one was completely dry and three had sensible improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The ProACT is a minimally invasive surgical therapy for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Early failure is frequent and is mainly due to rupture and migration of the device. In these cases the solution can be the replacement, even with impaired balloon inflation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]