Shiqiang Su1, Liangyou Gu2, Xin Ma2, Hongzhao Li2, Baojun Wang2, Taoping Shi2, Xu Zhang3. 1. Department of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing, China; Department of Urology, The First Hospital of Shijiazhuang, Shijiazhuang, China. 2. Department of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing, China. 3. Department of Urology/State Key Laboratory of Kidney Diseases, Chinese PLA General Hospital/PLA Medical School, Beijing, China. Electronic address: xzhang@foxmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for bladder cancer (BCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent LRC or RARC with curative intent for BCa between January 2011 and December 2016 were included. Perioperative, pathologic oncologic data were extracted from our database. Disease-free survival, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent LRC and 189 patients underwent RARC during the study period. All the baseline variables were similar between the two groups. Patients undergoing RARC had a significant higher median estimated blood loss (300 mL vs. 200 mL; P = .005), lower rate of 90-day postoperative complications (36.5% vs. 50.0%; P = .017), and higher median direct cost ($15,306 vs. $11,131; P < .001) than LRC. Other perioperative outcomes were similar. No differences were found in pathologic T stage, positive lymph nodes, or positive surgical margin between patients who underwent LRC and RARC. The 5-year disease-free survival, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival rates were 51.9%, 61.0%, and 69.5%, respectively, for all included patients. There were no significant differences in oncologic outcomes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with BCa can be safely managed with LRC and RARC by experienced surgeons. RARC was associated with a reduced rate of postoperative complication but also with higher median estimated blood loss, and higher median direct cost. These findings could be used to guide patient counseling, and treatment selection.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for bladder cancer (BCa). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients who underwent LRC or RARC with curative intent for BCa between January 2011 and December 2016 were included. Perioperative, pathologic oncologic data were extracted from our database. Disease-free survival, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank tests. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent LRC and 189 patients underwent RARC during the study period. All the baseline variables were similar between the two groups. Patients undergoing RARC had a significant higher median estimated blood loss (300 mL vs. 200 mL; P = .005), lower rate of 90-day postoperative complications (36.5% vs. 50.0%; P = .017), and higher median direct cost ($15,306 vs. $11,131; P < .001) than LRC. Other perioperative outcomes were similar. No differences were found in pathologic T stage, positive lymph nodes, or positive surgical margin between patients who underwent LRC and RARC. The 5-year disease-free survival, overall survival, and cancer-specific survival rates were 51.9%, 61.0%, and 69.5%, respectively, for all included patients. There were no significant differences in oncologic outcomes between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION:Patients with BCa can be safely managed with LRC and RARC by experienced surgeons. RARC was associated with a reduced rate of postoperative complication but also with higher median estimated blood loss, and higher median direct cost. These findings could be used to guide patient counseling, and treatment selection.
Authors: Iulia Andras; Angelo Territo; Teodora Telecan; Paul Medan; Ion Perciuleac; Alexandru Berindean; Dan V Stanca; Maximilian Buzoianu; Ioan Coman; Nicolae Crisan Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Amandeep Arora; Felipe Pugliesi; Ahmed S Zugail; Marco Moschini; Cristiano Pazeto; Petr Macek; Armando Stabile; Camille Lanz; Nathalie Cathala; Mostefa Bennamoun; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Xavier Cathelineau Journal: Arab J Urol Date: 2020-10-01
Authors: Sophia Liff Maibom; Ulla Nordström Joensen; Alicia Martin Poulsen; Henrik Kehlet; Klaus Brasso; Martin Andreas Røder Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Daniela Fasanella; Michele Marchioni; Luigi Domanico; Claudia Franzini; Antonino Inferrera; Luigi Schips; Francesco Greco Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-08-04
Authors: Lin Dong; Yu Qin; Lu Ya; Cao Liang; Hu Tinghui; He Pinlin; Yang Jin; Wang Youliang; Cui Shu; Wu Tao Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 1.817