UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Lymph node dissection and it's extend during robot-assisted radical cystectomy varies based on surgeon related factors. This study reports outcomes of robot-assisted extended lymphadenectomy based on surgeon experience in both academic and private practice settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of, and predictors for, extended lymph node dissection (LND) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for bladder cancer, as extended LND is critical for the treatment of bladder cancer but the role of minimally invasive surgery for extended LND has not been well-defined in a multi-institutional setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Used the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC) database. In all, 765 patients who underwent RARC at 17 institutions from 2003 to 2010 were evaluated for receipt of extended LND. Patients were stratified by age, sex, clinical stage, institutional volume, sequential case number, and surgeon volume. Logistic regression analyses were used to correlate variables to the likelihood of undergoing extended LND. RESULTS: In all, 445 (58%) patients underwent extended LND. Among all patients, a median (range) of 18 (0-74) LNs were examined. High-volume institutions (≥100 cases) had a higher mean LN yield (23 vs 15, P < 0.001). On univariable analysis, surgeon volume, institutional volume, and sequential case number were associated with likelihood of undergoing extended LND. On multivariable analysis, surgeon volume [odds ratio (OR) 3.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.37-5.06, P < 0.001] and institution volume [OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.47-4.78, P = 0.001) were associated with undergoing extended LND. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted LND can achieve similar LN yields to those of open LND after RC. High-volume surgeons are more likely to perform extended LND, reflecting a correlation between their growing experience and increased comfort with advanced vascular dissection.
UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Lymph node dissection and it's extend during robot-assisted radical cystectomy varies based on surgeon related factors. This study reports outcomes of robot-assisted extended lymphadenectomy based on surgeon experience in both academic and private practice settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of, and predictors for, extended lymph node dissection (LND) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for bladder cancer, as extended LND is critical for the treatment of bladder cancer but the role of minimally invasive surgery for extended LND has not been well-defined in a multi-institutional setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Used the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC) database. In all, 765 patients who underwent RARC at 17 institutions from 2003 to 2010 were evaluated for receipt of extended LND. Patients were stratified by age, sex, clinical stage, institutional volume, sequential case number, and surgeon volume. Logistic regression analyses were used to correlate variables to the likelihood of undergoing extended LND. RESULTS: In all, 445 (58%) patients underwent extended LND. Among all patients, a median (range) of 18 (0-74) LNs were examined. High-volume institutions (≥100 cases) had a higher mean LN yield (23 vs 15, P < 0.001). On univariable analysis, surgeon volume, institutional volume, and sequential case number were associated with likelihood of undergoing extended LND. On multivariable analysis, surgeon volume [odds ratio (OR) 3.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.37-5.06, P < 0.001] and institution volume [OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.47-4.78, P = 0.001) were associated with undergoing extended LND. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted LND can achieve similar LN yields to those of open LND after RC. High-volume surgeons are more likely to perform extended LND, reflecting a correlation between their growing experience and increased comfort with advanced vascular dissection.
Authors: Nicholas J Hellenthal; Michelle L Ramírez; Christopher P Evans; Ralph W deVere White; Theresa M Koppie Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-04-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: J P Stein; G Lieskovsky; R Cote; S Groshen; A C Feng; S Boyd; E Skinner; B Bochner; D Thangathurai; M Mikhail; D Raghavan; D G Skinner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nicholas J Hellenthal; Abid Hussain; Paul E Andrews; Paul Carpentier; Erik Castle; Prokar Dasgupta; Jihad Kaouk; Shamim Khan; Adam Kibel; Hyung Kim; Murugesan Manoharan; Mani Menon; Alex Mottrie; David Ornstein; Joan Palou; James Peabody; Raj Pruthi; Lee Richstone; Francis Schanne; Hans Stricker; Raju Thomas; Peter Wiklund; Greg Wilding; Khurshid A Guru Journal: BJU Int Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Eric C Kauffman; Casey K Ng; Ming Ming Lee; Brandon J Otto; Gerald J Wang; Douglas S Scherr Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Christopher E Barbieri; Byron Lee; Michael S Cookson; John Bingham; Peter E Clark; Joseph A Smith; Sam S Chang Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-08-16 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Karthik Tanneru; Seyed Behzad Jazayeri; Jatinder Kumar; Muhammad Umar Alam; Daniel Norez; Sabine Nguyen; Soroush Bazargani; Hariharan Palayapalayam Ganapathi; Mark Bandyk; Robert Marino; Shahriar Koochekpour; Shiva Gautam; K C Balaji; Joseph Costa Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2020-11-22
Authors: S Bier; A Sim; D Balbay; T Todenhöfer; S Aufderklamm; O Halalsheh; J Mischinger; J Böttge; S Rausch; A Stenzl; G Gakis; E Canda; C Schwentner Journal: Urologe A Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Jeffrey J Leow; Jens Bedke; Karim Chamie; Justin W Collins; Siamak Daneshmand; Petros Grivas; Axel Heidenreich; Edward M Messing; Trevor J Royce; Alexander I Sankin; Mark P Schoenberg; William U Shipley; Arnauld Villers; Jason A Efstathiou; Joaquim Bellmunt; Arnulf Stenzl Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Raj Satkunasivam; Christopher J D Wallis; Robert K Nam; Mihir Desai; Inderbir S Gill Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 16.430