Abstract
Background Early operative recovery and good Quality of life are important goals of radical cystectomy. We compare the pre, peri and post operative data between Open radical cystectomy (ORC) and Laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) surgery of neobladder.
Patients and Methods Retrospective analysis of 13 male consecutive patients who underwent radical cystectomy by a single surgeon was done. Diagnosis of all patients was of invasive bladder cancer. Abdominal and preoperative staging was done using computed tomography. None of them received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. All the patients received same standard template bilateral pelvic lympadenenectomy. The urinary diversion included orthotopic neobladder. All patients were consented prior to study participation.
Results Of the 13 male patients, six had ORC with neobladder while 7 underwent LRC surgery. Baseline characteristics (age, BMI, comorbidities, tumour grade, lymph node status) were similar in both groups. Incision length was significantly smaller in LRC as compared to ORC group (p <0.0001). Although the operative time was longer in LRC group as compared to ORC it was sufficed by reduced time for analgesics, shorter hospital stay (p<0.05), besides earlier time to liquid intake with immediate removal of nasogastric tube (p<0.001). No major complications were observed in the LRC unlike ORC group where one patient died at 30 days.
Conclusions Based on the observations of our small study sample peri and postoperative outcomes are promising for LRC compared to ORC for patients undergoing neobladder in terms of the smaller incision length associated with less pain and complications, with speedy recovery without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. Transition of surgeon from ORC to LRC was advantageous to patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Consent of patients were obtained by the respective institute to carry out the study. Ethics Committee of CIMS hospital, Ahmadabad, Gujarat.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors. Data is obtained from Hospital medical records
