Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To describe the technique, feasibility and short-term outcomes of buccal mucosa grafts in robotic lower urinary tract reconstruction. METHODS:We reviewed 9 patients who underwent single-port robotic posterior urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft from May-December 2019. Variables included patient demographics, diagnosis/etiology, and intraoperative parameters. Intraabdominal or extraperitoneal transvesical approaches are used for the stricture via supraumbilical access, and if necessary, perineal dissection is performed. Cystoscopy identifies the extent of stenosis. Anastomosis is completed with buccal mucosal graft and rectus abdominis, omental or gracilis flaps as needed. RESULTS:The mean age was 65.4 years. Robotic urethroplasty with buccal mucosa graft was performed for vesicourethral anastomotic strictures (n = 7), urethral strictures (n = 4), pubic fistula after robotic posterior urethroplasty (n = 1), and anastomotic distraction (n = 1). Strictures occurred after prostate cancer treatments (n = 8) and trauma (n = 1). All patients had prior failed endoscopic interventions: balloon dilatation, resection/incision of bladder neck, internal urethrotomy under direct vision, urethral stents, and posterior urethroplasty. Mean defect length was 3.9 cm. Five of 9 patients had ancillary procedures including rectus abdominis (n = 3), omental or gracilis (both n = 1) flap harvests. No intraoperative complications occurred. Median operative time was 377 minutes, blood loss was 200 mL, and length of stay was 2 days. Postoperative 30-day complications included urinary tract infection, epididymitis, anemia, recurrent stricture, and small bowel obstruction requiring surgery (all n = 1). Median follow-up was 11.7 months. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Buccal mucosa grafts with ancillary maneuvers such as flap interposition or adjacent tissue transfer in robotic lower tract reconstruction is durable, safe, and comparable to open approaches.

Silber and Kelly first described the successful autotransplantation of an intra-abdominal testis in 1976. Subsequent authors incorporated laparoscopy and demonstrated the viability of transplanted testes based on serial postoperative exams. We sought to extend this experience with use of the da Vinci surgical robot, thereby demonstrating a novel robotic technique for the management of cryptorchidism. The procedure was performed for an 18-year-old male with a solitary left intra-abdominal testis. Following establishment of pneumoperitoneum, the robot is docked with four trocars oriented towards the left lower quadrant. Testicular dissection is carried out as shown. The gonadal and inferior epigastric vessels are isolated and mobilized; once adequate length is achieved, the former is clipped and transected, and the testicle and inferior epigastric vessels are delivered out of the body. The robot is then undocked and exchanged for the operating microscope. Arterial and venous anastomoses are completed with interrupted and running 9-0 Nylon, respectively, and satisfactory re-anastomosis is confirmed visually and with Doppler. The transplanted testicle is then fixed inferiorly and laterally within the left hemiscrotum, and all incisions are closed. We note that intraoperative testicular biopsy was not performed, for three reasons: (1) to avoid further risk to an already tenuous, solitary organ, (2) because our primary aim was to preserve testicular endocrine function, and (3) because the presence of ITGCN would neither prompt orchiectomy nor obviate the need for ongoing surveillance via periodic self-examination and ultrasonography. The patient is maintained on bed rest for two days and discharged on postoperative day seven in good condition. Over one year since autotransplantation, his now intra-scrotal testicle remains palpable and stable in size. Serum testosterone is unchanged from preoperative measurements. Robotic-assisted testicular autotransplantation is a feasible and efficacious management option for the solitary intra-abdominal testis.

OBJECTIVE:To describe a novel method of robotic assisted laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair (RAL-PHR), including the evolving use of the Da Vinci Single Port (SP) robotic system. METHODS:Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were collected for patients who underwent RAL-PHR. The technique for RAL-PHR utilizes a 3 cm incision in the contralateral upper quadrant for the robotic trocar and a 12 mm assistant port. The hernia sac is freed from the fascial defect. Dual Surface Mesh is approximated to the fascial edges with a portion excised to tailor the conduit. RESULTS:Four patients underwent RAL-PHR and three utilized the SP robot. Median age was 74.4 (range: 69.0-76.9) and median BMI 28.6 (26.5-43.2). All patients underwent cystectomy for bladder cancer and median time from index operation to parastomal hernia repair was 47.3 (40.4-11.48) months. Concurrent operations to hernia repair included ureteroenteric stricture repair, panniculectomy, abdominal wall reconstruction, stoma revision, and incisional hernia repair. Median operative time was 3.9 (2.6-8.7) hours including concurrent operations, median EBL was 50 (10-100) cc, mesh used in 3 cases, with no intraoperative complications reported. Median length of stay was 1 day and 1 post-operative complication greater than Clavien 2 reported. At median follow up of 18.3 (3.63-38.3) months, no recurrences were reported and 1 patient had undergone stoma dilation in the OR. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:RAL-PHR using the SP system maximizes advantages of laparoscopic repair while allowing for flexibility to perform concurrent procedures and safer takedown of adhesions through just two incisions. RAL-PHR is a safe and effective alternative to open and laparoscopic parastomal hernia repair with several additional benefits.

OBJECTIVE:To describe the outcomes of single-stage and staged repairs in properly selected patients with phalloplasty anastomotic strictures. METHODS:A bi-institutional retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent anastomotic stricture repairs between 7/2014-8/2020. Those who had prior augmented urethroplasties or poorly vascularized tissue underwent two-stage repairs (Group-2), all others underwent single-stage repair with a double-face (dorsal inlay and ventral onlay) buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (Group-1). Postoperatively, urethral patency and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed. RESULTS:Twenty-three patients with anastomotic strictures were identified. Fourteen patients met inclusion criteria and had 1-year follow-up (9 in Group-1; 5 in Group-2). Nine patients (64%) had prior failed interventions (56% Group-1; 80% Group-2). At a mean follow-up of 33.9 (Group-1) and 35.2 months (Group-2) there were two stricture recurrences in Group-1 (22%) and none in Group-2. PROMs were completed by 12 patients. All patients reported the ability to void standing. Post-void dribbling was present in the majority of patients (7/7 Group-1; 2/4 in Group-2). Mean IPSS was 3.9 (0-14) for Group-1 and 1 (0-3) for Group-2. All reported at least a moderate improvement in their condition on GRA (Group-1 +3 71%, +2 29%; Group-2 +3 100%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Single-stage repairs are feasible for patients with anastomotic strictures who have well vascularized tissue and no prior single-stage buccal mucosa augmented urethroplasty failures. Staged repairs are feasible for patients with poor tissue quality. Proper patient selection is important for successful reconstruction.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Developments in robotic reconstructive urology have introduced novel treatments for complex upper and lower urinary tract disease. Short-term and mid-term data demonstrates excellent outcomes and minimal morbidity, suggesting the advanced instrumentation and visualization of robotics represent a new treatment paradigm in patients that are historically difficult to treat. Here we review recent developments in the robotically assisted surgical management of urethral and ureteral strictures. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:The minimally invasive approach, enhanced precision and reach, and near-infrared fluorescence imaging capabilities of robotic platforms have proven to be valuable additions in reconstructive urology where perfusion is often compromised, or anatomy is distorted. These benefits are leveraged heavily in recent descriptions of robotic-assisted posterior urethroplasty and ureteroplasty. Short-term to mid-term follow-up data for these procedures show excellent patency rates with low morbidity and complication rates when compared with open approaches. Long-term data for these procedures are not yet available. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:The role of robotics in reconstructive urology is being actively investigated. Initial findings demonstrate excellent results with low morbidity in the treatment of upper and lower urinary tract disease. Long-term data will ultimately determine the role of robotics in the reconstructive armamentarium.

Background Robotic pelvic surgery is increasingly utilized for reconstruction proximal to the genitourinary diaphragm. We describe a combined robotic transabdominal and open transperineal approach for complex anastomotic posterior urethroplasty. Methods We performed a multi-institutional retrospective study of patients who underwent anastomotic posterior urethroplasty by a combined robotic transabdominal and open transperineal approach between 1/2012 and 12/2018. Patient demographics; preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative clinical data; and complications were reviewed. Urethroplasty success, de novo stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and de novo erectile dysfunction (ED) were evaluated. Results 12 patients were identified with a mean follow-up of 596 (range 73-1618) days. Mean patient age was 65.9 (range 53.4-76.8). Reconstruction required corporal splitting, prostatectomy, and gracilis muscle flap use in 1 (8.3%), 8 (66.7%), and 4 (33.3%) patients, respectively. Postoperative urinary leak, thromboembolic event, and wound abscess occurred in 1 (8.3%), 1 (8.3%), and 2 (16.7%) patients, respectively. Stenosis recurrence occurred in 2 patients (16.7%) at a mean 187.5 (20-355) postoperative days. De novo ED and de novo SUI were reported in 2 (16.7%) and 4 (33.3%) patients, respectively. Nine patients (75.0%) underwent placement of an artificial urinary sphincter at a mean interval of 359.2 (111-1456) days after the index procedure with no subsequent erosion. Conclusions Complex posterior urethroplasty by a combined robotic transabdominal and open transperineal approach is associated with success and complications rates comparable to open techniques and may allow for adjunctive procedures such as prostatectomy. This technique allows for reconstruction of posterior urethral stenoses that would otherwise have been managed conservatively or with urinary diversion.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To present the technique and early outcomes of salvage neovaginal reconstruction using robotic dissection and peritoneal flap mobilization. METHODS:Twenty-four patients underwent robotic peritoneal flap revision vaginoplasty from 2017-2020. A canal is dissected between the bladder and rectum towards the stenosed vaginal cavity, which is incised and widened. Peritoneal flaps from the posterior bladder and pararectal fossa are advanced and sutured to edges of the stenosed cavity. Proximal peritoneal flap edges are approximated to form the neovaginal apex. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical indications, and operative details are described. Outcome measures include postoperative neovaginal dimensions and complications. RESULTS:Mean age at revision was 39 years (range 27-58). All patients had previously undergone PIV, with revision surgery occurring at a median 35.3 months (range 6-252) after primary vaginoplasty. Surgical indications included short or stenotic vagina or absent canal. Average procedure length was 5 hours. At mean follow up of 410 days (range 179-683), vaginal depth and width were 13.6 cm (range 10.9-14.5) and 3.6 cm (range 2.9-3.8), respectively. There were no immediate or intraoperative complications related to peritoneal flap harvest. No patient had rectal injury. One patient had post-operative canal bleeding requiring return to the operating room for hemostasis. CONCLUSIONS:Robotic peritoneal flap vaginoplasty is a safe, novel approach to canal revision after primary PIV with minimal donor site morbidity.