A Multi-Institutional Experience Utilizing Boari Flap in Robotic Urinary Reconstruction.

Objectives: There is presently scarce literature describing the outcomes of patients undergoing robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) using the Boari flap (BF) technique. Herein, we report our prospective, multi-institutional experience using BF in patients undergoing robotic urinary reconstruction. Patients and Methods: We reviewed our prospective, multicenter database for all patients undergoing RUR between September 2013 and September 2021 in which a BF was utilized. Preoperative, perioperative, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. Major complications were defined as a Clavien-Dindo classification grade >2. Surgical failure was defined as recurrent symptoms, obstruction on imaging, or the need for additional surgical interventions. Results: We identified 50 patients who underwent RUR using a BF. Four (8%) underwent the Single Port approach. Twenty-four patients (48%) were active or former tobacco users. Thirty-four patients (68%) had previously undergone abdominal surgery, 17 (34%) had prior ureteral stricture interventions, and 9 (18%) had prior abdominopelvic radiation. The most common stricture etiology was malignancy (34.4%). The median follow-up was 15.0 months with a 90% (45/50) success rate. The five documented cases of failure occurred at a median of 1.8 months following the procedure. Conclusion: In the largest prospective, multi-institutional study of patients undergoing RUR with BF in the literature to date, we demonstrate a low rate of complications and a high rate of surgical success in three tertiary academic medical centers. All observed failures occurred within 2 months of surgical intervention.

Propensity-Score Matched Analysis Between Extraperitoneal Single Port and Intraperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Institutional Experience.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes of single port and multiport robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy by using a propensity-score analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated all patients who underwent robotic prostatectomy by 3 urologic surgeons at our institution between January 2019 and October 2020. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and assessed. Patients were matched based on body mass index, Gleason group, and prostate volume using the optimal matching method. RESULTS: Overall, 98 and 165 patients underwent single port and multiport robotic prostatectomy, respectively. Following propensity-score matching, 98 multiport cases were matched 1:1 to single port cases. The median operative time was lower for multiport (111.5 vs 147.0 minutes, P = .0000). Single port had a lower median estimated blood loss (50.0 vs 75.0 mL, P = .0006), pain score on postoperative day 0 (1.0 vs 2.0, P = .0004), opioid use at postoperative day 1 (0.0 [IQR 0.0-5.0] vs 0.0 MME [IQR 0.0-7.5], P = .0058), cumulative opioid use (2.0 vs 7.0 MME, P = .0008), and lymph node yield (4.0 vs 7.0 nodes, P = .0051). Single port had a greater percentage of men regain full erectile function by 6 months (23.8% vs 4.8%, P = .002). CONCLUSION: The single port robotic system is a safe option for localized prostate cancer treatment, offering superior pain control and comparable perioperative results and intermediate-term functional outcomes compared to the multiport robotic approach.