Timothy G Wilson1, Khurshid Guru2, Raymond C Rosen3, Peter Wiklund4, Magnus Annerstedt5, Bernard H Bochner6, Kevin G Chan7, Francesco Montorsi8, Alexandre Mottrie9, Declan Murphy10, Giacomo Novara11, James O Peabody12, Joan Palou Redorta13, Eila C Skinner14, George Thalmann15, Arnulf Stenzl16, Bertram Yuh7, James Catto17. 1. City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA. Electronic address: twilson@coh.org. 2. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY, USA. 3. New England Research Institutes, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA. 4. Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Urology STHLM, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 7. City of Hope Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA. 8. University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 9. O.L.V. Clinic, Aalst, Belgium. 10. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 11. University of Padua, Padua, Italy. 12. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI, USA. 13. Fundació Puigvert, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 14. Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 15. University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 16. Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen, Tubingen, Germany. 17. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly used for radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary reconstruction. Sufficient data have accumulated to allow evidence-based consensus on key issues such as perioperative management, comparative effectiveness on surgical complications, and oncologic short- to midterm outcomes. OBJECTIVE: A 2-d conference of experts on RC and urinary reconstruction was organized in Pasadena, California, and the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, California, to systematically review existing peer-reviewed literature on robot-assisted RC (RARC), extended lymphadenectomy, and urinary reconstruction. No commercial support was obtained for the conference. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed in agreement with the PRISMA statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Systematic literature reviews and individual presentations were discussed, and consensus on all key issues was obtained. Most operative, intermediate-term oncologic, functional, and complication outcomes are similar between open RC (ORC) and RARC. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC generally requires longer operative time than ORC, particularly with intracorporeal reconstruction. Robotic assistance provides ergonomic value for surgeons. Surgeon experience and institutional volume strongly predict favorable outcomes for either open or robotic techniques. CONCLUSIONS: RARC appears to be similar to ORC in terms of operative, pathologic, intermediate-term oncologic, complication, and most functional outcomes. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC can be more expensive than ORC, although high procedural volume may attenuate this difference. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is an alternative to open surgery for patients with bladder cancer who require removal of their bladder and reconstruction of their urinary tract. RARC appears to be similar to open surgery for most important outcomes such as the rate of complications and intermediate-term cancer-specific survival. Although RARC has some ergonomic advantages for surgeons and may result in less blood loss during surgery, it is more time consuming and may be more expensive than open surgery.
CONTEXT: Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly used for radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary reconstruction. Sufficient data have accumulated to allow evidence-based consensus on key issues such as perioperative management, comparative effectiveness on surgical complications, and oncologic short- to midterm outcomes. OBJECTIVE: A 2-d conference of experts on RC and urinary reconstruction was organized in Pasadena, California, and the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, California, to systematically review existing peer-reviewed literature on robot-assisted RC (RARC), extended lymphadenectomy, and urinary reconstruction. No commercial support was obtained for the conference. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature was performed in agreement with the PRISMA statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Systematic literature reviews and individual presentations were discussed, and consensus on all key issues was obtained. Most operative, intermediate-term oncologic, functional, and complication outcomes are similar between open RC (ORC) and RARC. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC generally requires longer operative time than ORC, particularly with intracorporeal reconstruction. Robotic assistance provides ergonomic value for surgeons. Surgeon experience and institutional volume strongly predict favorable outcomes for either open or robotic techniques. CONCLUSIONS: RARC appears to be similar to ORC in terms of operative, pathologic, intermediate-term oncologic, complication, and most functional outcomes. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC can be more expensive than ORC, although high procedural volume may attenuate this difference. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is an alternative to open surgery for patients with bladder cancer who require removal of their bladder and reconstruction of their urinary tract. RARC appears to be similar to open surgery for most important outcomes such as the rate of complications and intermediate-term cancer-specific survival. Although RARC has some ergonomic advantages for surgeons and may result in less blood loss during surgery, it is more time consuming and may be more expensive than open surgery.
Authors: Ahmed A Hussein; Kevin J Sexton; Paul R May; Maxwell V Meng; Abolfazl Hosseini; Daniel D Eun; Siamak Daneshmand; Bernard H Bochner; James O Peabody; Ronney Abaza; Eila C Skinner; Richard E Hautmann; Khurshid A Guru Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Takehiro Iwata; Shoji Kimura; Beat Foerster; Nicola Fossati; Alberto Briganti; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Kilian M Gust; Shin Egawa; Yasutomo Nasu; Mohammad Abufaraj; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Pranav Sharma; Kamran Zargar-Shoshtari; Michael A Poch; Julio M Pow-Sang; Wade J Sexton; Philippe E Spiess; Scott M Gilbert Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Andrea Necchi; Gregory R Pond; Marc C Smaldone; Sumanta K Pal; Kevin Chan; Yu-Ning Wong; Rosalia Viterbo; Guru Sonpavde; Lauren C Harshman; Simon Crabb; Ajjai Alva; Simon Chowdhury; Ugo De Giorgi; Sandy Srinivas; Neeraj Agarwal; Aristotelis Bamias; Jack Baniel; Ali-Reza Golshayan; Sylvain Ladoire; Cora N Sternberg; Linda Cerbone; Evan Y Yu; Joaquim Bellmunt; Ulka Vaishampayan; Gunter Niegisch; Syed Hussain; Daniel W Bowles; Rafael Morales-Barrera; Matthew I Milowsky; Christine Theodore; Dominik R Berthold; Srikala S Sridhar; Thomas Powles; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Matthew D Galsky Journal: Eur Urol Focus Date: 2017-03-31