Robotic vs. open ureteral reimplantation: A retrospective comparative single‐centre series

Fuente: Wiley Open Access
Enregistré dans:
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs principaux: Alice Bourillon, Lucas Freton, Gregory Verhoest, Juliette Hascoet, Claire Richard, Camille Haudebert, Romain Mathieu, Lee C. Zhao, Karim Bensalah, Benoit Peyronnet
Format: Artículo Open Access
Publié: Wiley 2025
Sujets:
Accès en ligne:
Tags: Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
_version_ 1867004026591117312
author Alice Bourillon
Lucas Freton
Gregory Verhoest
Juliette Hascoet
Claire Richard
Camille Haudebert
Romain Mathieu
Lee C. Zhao
Karim Bensalah
Benoit Peyronnet
author_facet Alice Bourillon
Lucas Freton
Gregory Verhoest
Juliette Hascoet
Claire Richard
Camille Haudebert
Romain Mathieu
Lee C. Zhao
Karim Bensalah
Benoit Peyronnet
Alice Bourillon
Lucas Freton
Gregory Verhoest
Juliette Hascoet
Claire Richard
Camille Haudebert
Romain Mathieu
Lee C. Zhao
Karim Bensalah
Benoit Peyronnet
collection Wiley Open Access
contents Robotic vs. open ureteral reimplantation: A retrospective comparative single‐centre series Alice Bourillon Lucas Freton Gregory Verhoest Juliette Hascoet Claire Richard Camille Haudebert Romain Mathieu Lee C. Zhao Karim Bensalah Benoit Peyronnet BJUI Compass Abstract Objectives To compare the outcomes of open versus robotic ureteral reimplantation procedures at a single centre. Material and methods The charts of all patients with ureteral strictures who underwent open ureteral reimplantation between 2005 and 2024, and those who underwent robotic reimplantation between 2013 and 2024, were retrospectively reviewed, and the outcomes of the two approaches were compared. Results Eighty patients were included in the final analysis: 45 in the open surgery group and 35 in the robotic group. After a median follow‐up duration of 16,5 months for the open group and 10 months for the robotic group, the stricture recurrence rate was similar in both groups (6,8% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.99). In terms of long‐term complications, there were similar rates of symptomatic reflux (4.4% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.99) and flank pain (8.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.99) between both groups. There were more recurrent urinary tract infections in the open group (17.8% vs. 8.6%) and more de novo lower urinary tract symptoms in the robotic group (11.4% vs. 2.2%), but these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.33 and p = 0.16, respectively). Overall, 30 patients (38%) had at least one long‐term complication (35.6% vs 40%; p = 0.82). The only variable significantly associated with the risk of stricture recurrence was radiotherapy (OR = 11.2; p = 0.01). Conclusion The robotic approach appears to be non‐inferior to the open approach in terms of stricture recurrence while being associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and lower estimated blood loss. More importantly, the present series raises questions regarding the long‐term consequences of ureteral reimplantation and confirms the higher risk of failure in radiated patients. 10.1002/bco2.70110 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
doi_str_mv 10.1002/bco2.70110
format Artículo Open Access
id wiley_oa_10_1002_bco2_70110
institution Wiley Open Access
license_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
publishDate 2025
publisher Wiley
record_format wiley_oa
spellingShingle Robotic vs. open ureteral reimplantation: A retrospective comparative single‐centre series
Alice Bourillon
Lucas Freton
Gregory Verhoest
Juliette Hascoet
Claire Richard
Camille Haudebert
Romain Mathieu
Lee C. Zhao
Karim Bensalah
Benoit Peyronnet
BJUI Compass
Robotic vs. open ureteral reimplantation: A retrospective comparative single‐centre series Alice Bourillon Lucas Freton Gregory Verhoest Juliette Hascoet Claire Richard Camille Haudebert Romain Mathieu Lee C. Zhao Karim Bensalah Benoit Peyronnet BJUI Compass Abstract Objectives To compare the outcomes of open versus robotic ureteral reimplantation procedures at a single centre. Material and methods The charts of all patients with ureteral strictures who underwent open ureteral reimplantation between 2005 and 2024, and those who underwent robotic reimplantation between 2013 and 2024, were retrospectively reviewed, and the outcomes of the two approaches were compared. Results Eighty patients were included in the final analysis: 45 in the open surgery group and 35 in the robotic group. After a median follow‐up duration of 16,5 months for the open group and 10 months for the robotic group, the stricture recurrence rate was similar in both groups (6,8% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.99). In terms of long‐term complications, there were similar rates of symptomatic reflux (4.4% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.99) and flank pain (8.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.99) between both groups. There were more recurrent urinary tract infections in the open group (17.8% vs. 8.6%) and more de novo lower urinary tract symptoms in the robotic group (11.4% vs. 2.2%), but these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.33 and p = 0.16, respectively). Overall, 30 patients (38%) had at least one long‐term complication (35.6% vs 40%; p = 0.82). The only variable significantly associated with the risk of stricture recurrence was radiotherapy (OR = 11.2; p = 0.01). Conclusion The robotic approach appears to be non‐inferior to the open approach in terms of stricture recurrence while being associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and lower estimated blood loss. More importantly, the present series raises questions regarding the long‐term consequences of ureteral reimplantation and confirms the higher risk of failure in radiated patients. 10.1002/bco2.70110 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Robotic vs. open ureteral reimplantation: A retrospective comparative single‐centre series
topic BJUI Compass
url https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bco2.70110