Francesco Di Bello, Natali Rodriguez Peñaranda, Andrea Marmiroli, Mattia Longoni, Fabian Falkenbach, Quynh Chi Le, Zhe Tian, Jordan A Goyal, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Gianluigi Califano, Massimiliano Creta, Fred Saad, Shahrokh F Shariat, Stefano Puliatti, Ottavio De Cobelli, Alberto Briganti, Markus Graefen, Felix H K Chun, Nicola Longo, Pierre I Karakiewicz
{"title":"Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy: Comparison of Adverse In-Hospital Outcomes.","authors":"Francesco Di Bello, Natali Rodriguez Peñaranda, Andrea Marmiroli, Mattia Longoni, Fabian Falkenbach, Quynh Chi Le, Zhe Tian, Jordan A Goyal, Claudia Collà Ruvolo, Gianluigi Califano, Massimiliano Creta, Fred Saad, Shahrokh F Shariat, Stefano Puliatti, Ottavio De Cobelli, Alberto Briganti, Markus Graefen, Felix H K Chun, Nicola Longo, Pierre I Karakiewicz","doi":"10.1002/jso.28108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To quantify improvements in adverse in-hospital outcomes between historical and contemporary robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) versus historical and contemporary open RC (ORC).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Within the National Inpatient Sample (2010-2019), RARC and ORC ileal conduit diversion patients were identified. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regression models were fitted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of RARC patients, 1343 (39%) were historical (2010-2014) and 2087 (61%) were contemporary (2015-2019). Of ORC patients, 5812 (54%) were historical and 5019 (46%) were contemporary. Versus historical counterparts, contemporary RARC patients exhibited significantly better adverse in-hospital outcomes in 9 of 13 categories, with improvements ranging from -82% for intraoperative complications to -22% for cumulative postoperative complications. Similarly, versus historical, contemporary ORC patients also exhibited significantly better adverse in-hospital outcomes in 9 of 13 categories, with improvements ranging from -72% for intraoperative complications to -12% for median length of stay (LOS). When contemporary RARC was compared to contemporary ORC, RARC adverse in-hospital outcomes were better in 7 of 13 comparisons, with improvements ranging from -55% for blood transfusions to -18% for median LOS. Similarly, when historical RARC was compared to historical ORC, RARC adverse in-hospital outcomes were better in 6 of 13 comparisons, with improvements ranging from -55% for blood transfusions to -15% for median LOS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The magnitude of the improvement in adverse in-hospital outcomes was comparable between contemporary versus historical RARC (nine improved categories) and contemporary versus historical ORC (nine improved categories). However, contemporary RARC outperformed contemporary ORC in 7 of 13 categories of adverse in-hospital outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":17111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.28108","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify improvements in adverse in-hospital outcomes between historical and contemporary robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) versus historical and contemporary open RC (ORC).
Material and methods: Within the National Inpatient Sample (2010-2019), RARC and ORC ileal conduit diversion patients were identified. Multivariable logistic and Poisson regression models were fitted.
Results: Of RARC patients, 1343 (39%) were historical (2010-2014) and 2087 (61%) were contemporary (2015-2019). Of ORC patients, 5812 (54%) were historical and 5019 (46%) were contemporary. Versus historical counterparts, contemporary RARC patients exhibited significantly better adverse in-hospital outcomes in 9 of 13 categories, with improvements ranging from -82% for intraoperative complications to -22% for cumulative postoperative complications. Similarly, versus historical, contemporary ORC patients also exhibited significantly better adverse in-hospital outcomes in 9 of 13 categories, with improvements ranging from -72% for intraoperative complications to -12% for median length of stay (LOS). When contemporary RARC was compared to contemporary ORC, RARC adverse in-hospital outcomes were better in 7 of 13 comparisons, with improvements ranging from -55% for blood transfusions to -18% for median LOS. Similarly, when historical RARC was compared to historical ORC, RARC adverse in-hospital outcomes were better in 6 of 13 comparisons, with improvements ranging from -55% for blood transfusions to -15% for median LOS.
Conclusion: The magnitude of the improvement in adverse in-hospital outcomes was comparable between contemporary versus historical RARC (nine improved categories) and contemporary versus historical ORC (nine improved categories). However, contemporary RARC outperformed contemporary ORC in 7 of 13 categories of adverse in-hospital outcomes.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Surgical Oncology offers peer-reviewed, original papers in the field of surgical oncology and broadly related surgical sciences, including reports on experimental and laboratory studies. As an international journal, the editors encourage participation from leading surgeons around the world. The JSO is the representative journal for the World Federation of Surgical Oncology Societies. Publishing 16 issues in 2 volumes each year, the journal accepts Research Articles, in-depth Reviews of timely interest, Letters to the Editor, and invited Editorials. Guest Editors from the JSO Editorial Board oversee multiple special Seminars issues each year. These Seminars include multifaceted Reviews on a particular topic or current issue in surgical oncology, which are invited from experts in the field.