Preliminary Functional Outcome Following Robotic Intracorporeal Orthotopic Ileal Neobladder with Integrated Pelvic Fascial Structure-Sparing in Males with Bladder Cancer
Urology Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 05 (2025),
11 November 2025
,
Page 237-243
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v22i.8450
Abstract
Purpose: To describe our integrated pelvic fascial structure-sparing (IPFSS) technique for robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder (ONB) reconstruction and to evaluate its impact on urinary continence and sexual function in male patients.
Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted at a single high-volume center. Male bladder cancer patients who underwent IPFSS RARC with ONB were included. Demographic, clinical, and pathological data were collected. Functional outcomes were evaluated and compared with a cohort of patients who underwent conventional non–nerve-sparing RARC.
Results: Thirty-six patients were included in the IPFSS group and 42 in the conventional group. RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion was successfully completed in all patients without open conversion. The mean total operative time was 387.9 minutes in the IPFSS group and 392.0 minutes in the conventional group (p = 0.465). At 3 months post-surgery, 30 patients (83%) in the IPFSS group achieved daytime continence (0–1 pads), compared to 14 patients (33%) in the conventional group. By 6 months, daytime continence increased to 35 patients (97%) in the IPFSS group, while 28 patients (67%) in the conventional group achieved similar results. At 6 months, 30 patients (83%) in the IPFSS group reported full potency with or without phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors, compared to only 3 patients (7%) in the conventional group.
Conclusion: We present a feasible surgical technique for RARC that involves holistic preservation of the pelvic fascial architecture. This approach is associated with a rapid recovery of daytime continence and sexual function in male patients.
- Cystectomy
- Intracorporeal
- Neobladder
- Pelvic fascial structure-sparing
- Robotic surgery
How to Cite
References
van der Heijden AG, Bruins HM, Carrion A, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Summary of the 2025 Guidelines. Eur Urol. 2025;87:582-600.
Han JH, Ku JH. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Where we are in 2023. Investig Clin Urol. 2023;64:107-17.
Cella L, Basile G, Moretto S, et al. Robotic assisted vs open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2024;18:277.
Qu LG, Lawrentschuk N. Orthotopic Neobladder Reconstruction: Patient Selection And Perspectives. Res Rep Urol. 2019;11:333-41.
Abdelaziz AY, Shaker H, Seifelnasr M, Elfol H, Nazim M, Mahmoued M. Early Oncological and Functional Outcomes of Prostate Capsule Sparing Cystectomy Compared with Standard Radical Cystectomy. Curr Urol. 2019;13:37-45.
Voskuilen CS, Fransen van de Putte EE, Pérez-Reggeti JI, et al. Prostate sparing cystectomy for bladder cancer: A two-center study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018;44:1446-52.
Mertens LS, Meijer RP, de Vries RR, et al. Prostate sparing cystectomy for bladder cancer: 20-year single center experience. J Urol. 2014;191:1250-5.
Furrer MA, Kiss B, Studer UE, et al. Seminal Vesical Sparing Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer is Feasible with Good Functional Results without Impairing Oncological Outcomes: A Longitudinal Long-Term Propensity-Matched Single Center Study. J Urol. 2021;205:1629-40.
Muto G, Collura D, Rosso R, Giacobbe A, Muto GL, Castelli E. Seminal-sparing cystectomy: technical evolution and results over a 20-year period. Urology. 2014;83:856-61.
Asimakopoulos AD, Campagna A, Gakis G, et al. Nerve Sparing, Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy with Intracorporeal Bladder Substitution in the Male. J Urol. 2016;196:1549-57.
Furrer MA, Studer UE, Gross T, Burkhard FC, Thalmann GN, Nguyen DP. Nerve-sparing radical cystectomy has a beneficial impact on urinary continence after orthotopic bladder substitution, which becomes even more apparent over time. BJU Int. 2018;121:935-44.
Hautmann RE, Stein JP. Neobladder with prostatic capsule and seminal-sparing cystectomy for bladder cancer: a step in the wrong direction. Urol Clin North Am. 2005;32:177-85.
Botto H, Sebe P, Molinie V, Herve JM, Yonneau L, Lebret T. Prostatic capsule- and seminal-sparing cystectomy for bladder carcinoma: initial results for selected patients. BJU Int. 2004;94:1021-5.
Kefer JC, Voelzke BB, Flanigan RC, Wojcik EM, Waters WB, Campbell SC. Risk assessment for occult malignancy in the prostate before radical cystectomy. Urology. 2005;66:1251-5.
Muro S, Akita K. Pelvic floor and perineal muscles: a dynamic coordination between skeletal and smooth muscles on pelvic floor stabilization. Anat Sci Int. 2023;98:407-25.
Vis AN, van der Poel HG, Ruiter AEC, et al. Posterior, Anterior, and Periurethral Surgical Reconstruction of Urinary Continence Mechanisms in Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Description and Video Compilation of Commonly Performed Surgical Techniques. Eur Urol. 2019;76:814-22.
Rocco B, Luciani LG, Collins J, et al. Posterior reconstruction during robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal orthotopic ileal neobladder: description and outcomes of a simple step. J Robot Surg. 2021;15:355-61.
Witjes JA, Bruins HM, Carrión A, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Summary of the 2023 Guidelines. Eur Urol. 2023;85:17-31.
Mathew G, Agha R, Albrecht J, et al. STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Int J Surg. 2021;96:106165.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-13.
Hwang EC, Sathianathen NJ, Imamura M, Kuntz GM, Risk MC, Dahm P. Extended versus standard lymph node dissection for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;5:CD013336.
Gschwend JE, Heck MM, Lehmann J, et al. Extended Versus Limited Lymph Node Dissection in Bladder Cancer Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy: Survival Results from a Prospective, Randomized Trial. Eur Urol. 2019;75:604-11.
Song T, Kim WY, Lee KW, Kim KH. Effect on ovarian reserve of hemostasis by bipolar coagulation versus suture during laparoendoscopic single-site cystectomy for ovarian endometriomas. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22:415-20.
Cacciamani GE, De Marco V, Sebben M, et al. Robot-assisted Vescica Ileale Padovana: A New Technique for Intracorporeal Bladder Replacement Reproducing Open Surgical Principles. Eur Urol. 2019;76:381-90.
Nesbit RM. Operation for correction of distal penile ventral curvature with or without hypospadias. J Urol. 1967;97:720-2.
Le Duc A, Camey M, Teillac P. An original antireflux ureteroileal implantation technique: long-term followup. J Urol. 1987;137:1156-8.
Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R, et al. A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update. Eur Urol. 2016;70:301-11.
Dalpiaz O, Anderhuber F. The fascial suspension of the prostate: A cadaveric study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:1131-5.
Egan J, Marhamati S, Carvalho FLF, et al. Retzius-sparing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Leads to Durable Improvement in Urinary Function and Quality of Life Versus Standard Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Without Compromise on Oncologic Efficacy: Single-surgeon Series and Step-by-step Guide. Eur Urol. 2021;79:839-57.
de Carvalho PA, Barbosa J, Guglielmetti GB, et al. Retrograde Release of the Neurovascular Bundle with Preservation of Dorsal Venous Complex During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Optimizing Functional Outcomes. Eur Urol. 2020;77:628-35.
Wagaskar VG, Mittal A, Sobotka S, et al. Hood Technique for Robotic Radical Prostatectomy-Preserving Periurethral Anatomical Structures in the Space of Retzius and Sparing the Pouch of Douglas, Enabling Early Return of Continence Without Compromising Surgical Margin Rates. Eur Urol. 2021;80:213-21.
Martini A, Falagario UG, Russo A, et al. Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy with Orthotopic Neobladder Reconstruction: Techniques and Functional Outcomes in Males. Eur Urol. 2023;84:484-90.
Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, et al. Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int. 2003;92:232-6.
Martini A, Touzani A, Ploussard G. Lower Detrusor Apron-sparing Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy and Intracorporeal Neobladder Reconstruction: Technique and Preliminary Outcomes. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9:760-4.
Ando S, Kamei J, Yamazaki M, et al. Longer preserved urethral length in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy significantly contributes to post-operative urinary continence recovery. BJUI Compass. 2022;3:184-90.
Kadono Y, Ueno S, Iwamoto D, et al. Chronological Urodynamic Evaluation of Changing Bladder and Urethral Functions After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Urology. 2015;85:1441-7.
- Abstract Viewed: 313 times
- 8450/pdf Downloaded: 149 times