Robotic intracorporeal urinary diversion

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review historical aspects and current status of the emerging approach of robotic urinary diversion (rUD). Established surgical principles of constructing a low-pressure, large-capacity reservoir are described and the open surgical literature succinctly reviewed to establish the gold standard. Incontinent and continent rUD types [ileal conduit, orthotopic neobladder (all varieties), continent cutaneous diversion, cutaneous ureterostomy] and techniques (extra-corporeal, intra-corporeal) are discussed. Outcomes data (intra-operative, perioperative, intermediate-term, long-term), functional outcomes, complications and learning curve are presented. Outcomes data of open versus robotic urinary diversion are examined. Critiques, improvements, and pros-cons of rUD are discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: Although the majority of centers performing rUD use the extracorporeal technique, use of intra-corporeal rUD is increasing. Although data are yet limited, intra-corporeal rUD may provide some benefits. For rUD, operative times are higher and complication rates comparable with open urinary diversion. SUMMARY: The entire range of urinary diversion surgery has now been replicated robotically. At this writing, extracorporeal urinary diversion techniques still predominate following robotic cystectomy. However, all rUD options can now be performed intra-corporeally with success. As experience increases, the field of robotic urinary diversion is poised to grow.