Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 31;39(2):107–120. doi: 10.4103/iju.iju_276_22

Table 6.

Summary of malone antegrade continence enema primary outcomes

Author (s) Year published Number of patients (total) Number of robotic patients Number of open patients Number of laparoscopic patients Type of study Operation time (robotic) Operation time (open) Operation time (laparoscopic)
MACE
 Lendvay et al. 2008 1 1 - - Retrospective (case report) 8 h - -
 Thakre et al. 2008 1 1 - - Retrospective (case report) 200 min - -
 Zee et al. 2017 1 1 - - Retrospective (case report) - - -
 Halleran et al. 2018 7 7 - - Retrospective 526 min (313–724) - -
 Galansky and Gundeti* 2021 22 11 11 - Retrospective 292 min (±59) 294 min (±154) -
 Saoud and Gundeti 2022 28 13 15 - Retrospective - - -

Author (s) LOS (robotic) LOS (open) LOS (laparoscopic) Success rate (robotic) (%) Success rate (open) (%) Success rate (laparoscopic) Postoperative complication rate (robotic) (%) Postoperative complication rate (open) (%) Postoperative complication rate (laparoscopic) Follow-up time

MACE
 Lendvay et al. 5 days - - 100 - - 0 - - 9 months
 Thakre et al. 5 days - - 100 - - 0 - - -
 Zee et al. 2 days - - 100 - - - - - -
 Halleran et al. 5 days (median) (4–7) - - 86 - - 29 - - 0.8 years (median)
 Galansky and Gundeti* 6.8 days (±3.6) 13 days (±12.6) - 91.20 91.40 - 38.20 42.90 - 75 months (median)
 Saoud and Gundeti 7 days median) (6–10) 8 days (median) (7–11) - 84.60 87 - 23.10 40 - 66.5 months (robotic); 81 months (open) (median)

*Outcomes in Galansky and Gundeti (2021) are for combined catheterizable channel procedures (APV, MACE). Mean outcomes are shown unless otherwise listed. MACE=Malone antegrade continence enema, LOS=Length of stay, APV=Appendicovesicostomy