Robot-assisted laparoscopic orchiopexy: A comparative analysis with laparoscopic orchiopexy

A. Rensing, Abdul Qadar, Clark Higganbotham*, D. Frimberger, B. Meenakshi‐Sundaram
{"title":"Robot-assisted laparoscopic orchiopexy: A comparative analysis with laparoscopic orchiopexy","authors":"A. Rensing, Abdul Qadar, Clark Higganbotham*, D. Frimberger, B. Meenakshi‐Sundaram","doi":"10.3389/fruro.2023.1103915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background While undescended testes are relatively common, the nonpalpable testis remains a challenging problem. The gold standard treatment remains the laparoscopic orchiopexy. However, today robot-assisted surgery has challenged traditional laparoscopy in many areas of urology. Yet the value of this new approach remains controversial, given concerns with operative time and cost. We reviewed our contemporary results of both robot-assisted orchiopexy (RALO) and traditional laparoscopic orchiopexy (TLO). Our primary aims were to retrospectively compare success rates, and operative time. Our secondary aims were to compare costs and complications related to each method. Methods In this study, all patients treated with laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic orchiopexy from April 2017 to January 2022 were reviewed using CPT code 54692. Exclusion criteria included bilateral concomitant orchiopexy or concomitant “major surgery,” or follow up less than 6 months. Also excluded were 1st stage orchiopexies. For the purposes of comparison, 1-stage and 2nd stage orchiopexies were included in the analysis. Patient demographics, surgical operative notes and documentation were all reviewed. Results After exclusion criteria was applied, 16 and 17 remained in the laparoscopic and robot-assisted cohorts, respectively. Upon follow up, all patients in both the laparoscopic and robot-assisted cohorts were noted to have a healthy testicle palpable in the dependent portion of the scrotum. The median operative time in the TLO group was 71 minutes, compared to 101 minutes in the RALO group (p>0.0001). When comparing median hospital charges, the TLO group was lower at $38,813, compared to $46,455 in the RALO group (p = 0.0069). There was one postoperative complication in the TLO group (localized wound infection), compared to zero in the RALO group. Conclusions The robot-assisted orchiopexy is safe and effective. However, at this time it remains more costly in terms of time and resources.","PeriodicalId":73113,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fruro.2023.1103915","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background While undescended testes are relatively common, the nonpalpable testis remains a challenging problem. The gold standard treatment remains the laparoscopic orchiopexy. However, today robot-assisted surgery has challenged traditional laparoscopy in many areas of urology. Yet the value of this new approach remains controversial, given concerns with operative time and cost. We reviewed our contemporary results of both robot-assisted orchiopexy (RALO) and traditional laparoscopic orchiopexy (TLO). Our primary aims were to retrospectively compare success rates, and operative time. Our secondary aims were to compare costs and complications related to each method. Methods In this study, all patients treated with laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic orchiopexy from April 2017 to January 2022 were reviewed using CPT code 54692. Exclusion criteria included bilateral concomitant orchiopexy or concomitant “major surgery,” or follow up less than 6 months. Also excluded were 1st stage orchiopexies. For the purposes of comparison, 1-stage and 2nd stage orchiopexies were included in the analysis. Patient demographics, surgical operative notes and documentation were all reviewed. Results After exclusion criteria was applied, 16 and 17 remained in the laparoscopic and robot-assisted cohorts, respectively. Upon follow up, all patients in both the laparoscopic and robot-assisted cohorts were noted to have a healthy testicle palpable in the dependent portion of the scrotum. The median operative time in the TLO group was 71 minutes, compared to 101 minutes in the RALO group (p>0.0001). When comparing median hospital charges, the TLO group was lower at $38,813, compared to $46,455 in the RALO group (p = 0.0069). There was one postoperative complication in the TLO group (localized wound infection), compared to zero in the RALO group. Conclusions The robot-assisted orchiopexy is safe and effective. However, at this time it remains more costly in terms of time and resources.
机器人辅助的腹腔镜睾丸切除术:与腹腔镜睾丸切除术的比较分析
背景:虽然隐睾是比较常见的,但不可触及的睾丸仍然是一个具有挑战性的问题。金标准治疗仍然是腹腔镜睾丸切除术。然而,今天机器人辅助手术在泌尿外科的许多领域挑战了传统的腹腔镜手术。然而,考虑到手术时间和成本,这种新方法的价值仍然存在争议。我们回顾了目前机器人辅助睾丸切除术(RALO)和传统腹腔镜睾丸切除术(TLO)的研究结果。我们的主要目的是回顾性比较成功率和手术时间。我们的第二个目的是比较每种方法的成本和并发症。方法本研究对2017年4月至2022年1月期间接受腹腔镜和机器人辅助腹腔镜睾丸切除术的所有患者进行回顾性分析,使用CPT代码54692。排除标准包括双侧合并睾丸切除术或合并“大手术”,或随访时间少于6个月。也排除了一期睾丸切除术。为了比较起见,我们将一期和二期睾丸切除术纳入分析。患者的人口统计资料,手术记录和文件都进行了审查。结果应用排除标准后,腹腔镜组和机器人辅助组分别保留了16例和17例。在随访中,腹腔镜和机器人辅助组的所有患者在阴囊依赖部分均可触及健康睾丸。TLO组的中位手术时间为71分钟,而RALO组为101分钟(p>0.0001)。在比较医院费用中位数时,TLO组较低,为38,813美元,而RALO组为46,455美元(p = 0.0069)。TLO组有一例术后并发症(局部伤口感染),而RALO组为零。结论机器人辅助睾丸切除术安全、有效。然而,在这个时候,它在时间和资源方面仍然是昂贵的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信