Abstract Book - 26th ESPU Congress, Joint Meeting with ICCS + SPU + AAP/SOU + AAPU + SFU

17:03 - 17:06

S20-4

(PP)

PERI-OPERATIVE AND SHORT TERM OUTCOMES OF ROBOTIC VERUS OPEN

BLADDER NECK PROCEDURES IN PATIENTS WITH NEUROGENIC INCONTINENCE

Gwen GRIMSBY

, Vani MENON

, Richard ADAMS

, Linda BAKER

, Micah JACOBS

and Patricio GARGOLLO

1) University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Pediatric Urology, Dallas, USA - 2) Texas Scottish Rite Hospital,

Pediatric Developmental Disabilities, Dallas, USA - 3) Baylor College of Medicine, Pediatric Urology, Houston, USA

PURPOSE

Complex urologic reconstruction may be facilitated by the improved magnification and dexterity provided with a robotic

approach. Minimally invasive surgery also has the potential advantages of decreased length of stay (LOS) and improved

convalescence. This study reviewed peri-operative and short term outcomes between robotic assisted and open bladder

neck sling/repair with catheterizable channel (BNR) in patients with neurogenic bladder (NGB).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An IRB approved retrospective chart review was performed of all patients who underwent open or robotic BNR without

augmentation cystoplasty for urinary incontinence refractory to CIC and anticholinergic therapy from 2010-2014. Age at

surgery, operative time, LOS, complications within 30 days of surgery, and future continence procedures (injection of

bladder neck/catheterizable channel, additional bladder neck surgery, Botox injection) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

44 patients underwent BNR (25 open, 19 robotic) with a mean follow up of 2.8 years. There was no difference in age at

surgery (8.5 vs 9.9 years, p=0.2) or LOS (median 4 days in each group, p>0.9) between groups. Operative time was

significantly longer in the robotic cohort (8.1 vs 4.5 hours, p<0.001). 3 (16%) robotic and 3 (12%) open patients had a

complication within 30 days (p>0.9). 14 (56%) open patients underwent a total of 23 future surgeries for incontinence

compared with 8 (42%) robotic patients undergoing 12 additional procedures (p= 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a robotic approach may take longer to perform, it is not at the cost of increased complications, LOS, or

worsened continence outcomes.