Robotic radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: is it the future?

IF 0.6 Q4 SURGERY
A. Canda, A. Atmaca, M. Arslan, M. Keske, O. U. Cakici, S. Çakmak, D. Kamaci, Emre Urer
{"title":"Robotic radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: is it the future?","authors":"A. Canda, A. Atmaca, M. Arslan, M. Keske, O. U. Cakici, S. Çakmak, D. Kamaci, Emre Urer","doi":"10.2147/OAS.S42290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Open radical cystectomy (RC) is the gold standard surgical approach in the management of muscle invasive bladder cancer in addition to high-grade, recurrent, noninvasive tumors. With the development of surgical robotic technology, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly being performed as a minimally invasive surgical approach. A learning curve exists with a recommended case number of at least 20 RARC procedures in order to achieve satisfying outcomes in terms of operation time, complication rate, and onco- logical outcomes, including positive surgical margins (SMs) and lymph node (LN) yield. In the current literature, long-term outcomes of RARC are not yet available. Due to the outcomes of the published literature, RARC seems to have satisfactory oncologic and functional outcomes in addition to acceptable complication rates. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion rates seem to be decreased in RARC series when compared to open approaches. On the other hand, a number of authors have reported decreased complication rates but increased operation time in the robotic approach. Similar oncologic results including positive SM rates and LN yields were detected in most comparative publications. Totally intracorporeal RARC with urinary diversion is a complex procedure and the number of centers performing this type of surgery is currently very limited. Although, it is still too early to make strict conclusions about RARC, RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion has the potential to be the future of robotic bladder cancer surgery. Therefore, further prospective and randomized studies with increased numbers of patients and with longer follow-up are needed. Lastly, RARC may be related to increased cost when compared to open surgery, although controversial reports exist about this issue.","PeriodicalId":56363,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/OAS.S42290","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAS.S42290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Open radical cystectomy (RC) is the gold standard surgical approach in the management of muscle invasive bladder cancer in addition to high-grade, recurrent, noninvasive tumors. With the development of surgical robotic technology, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly being performed as a minimally invasive surgical approach. A learning curve exists with a recommended case number of at least 20 RARC procedures in order to achieve satisfying outcomes in terms of operation time, complication rate, and onco- logical outcomes, including positive surgical margins (SMs) and lymph node (LN) yield. In the current literature, long-term outcomes of RARC are not yet available. Due to the outcomes of the published literature, RARC seems to have satisfactory oncologic and functional outcomes in addition to acceptable complication rates. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion rates seem to be decreased in RARC series when compared to open approaches. On the other hand, a number of authors have reported decreased complication rates but increased operation time in the robotic approach. Similar oncologic results including positive SM rates and LN yields were detected in most comparative publications. Totally intracorporeal RARC with urinary diversion is a complex procedure and the number of centers performing this type of surgery is currently very limited. Although, it is still too early to make strict conclusions about RARC, RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion has the potential to be the future of robotic bladder cancer surgery. Therefore, further prospective and randomized studies with increased numbers of patients and with longer follow-up are needed. Lastly, RARC may be related to increased cost when compared to open surgery, although controversial reports exist about this issue.
机器人根治性膀胱切除术治疗膀胱癌:这是未来吗?
开放根治性膀胱切除术(RC)是治疗肌肉浸润性膀胱癌的金标准手术方法,也是治疗高级别、复发性、非侵袭性肿瘤的金标准手术方法。随着手术机器人技术的发展,机器人辅助腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)作为一种微创手术方式越来越多地被应用。为了在手术时间、并发症发生率和肿瘤预后(包括阳性手术切缘(SMs)和淋巴结(LN)产率方面达到令人满意的结果,推荐病例数至少为20例RARC手术存在学习曲线。在目前的文献中,RARC的长期结果尚未得到。根据已发表文献的结果,除了可接受的并发症发生率外,RARC似乎具有令人满意的肿瘤和功能结果。与开放入路相比,RARC系列术中出血量和输血率似乎有所降低。另一方面,一些作者报道了机器人入路的并发症发生率降低,但手术时间增加。类似的肿瘤学结果,包括阳性SM率和LN产率在大多数比较出版物中检测到。全体内RARC伴尿路转移是一项复杂的手术,目前开展此类手术的中心数量非常有限。虽然现在对RARC做出严格的结论还为时过早,但RARC结合体内尿转移有可能成为机器人膀胱癌手术的未来。因此,需要进一步的前瞻性和随机化研究,增加患者数量,延长随访时间。最后,与开放手术相比,RARC可能与成本增加有关,尽管关于这个问题存在争议的报道。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Open Access Surgery is an international, peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that focuses on all aspects of surgical procedures and interventions. Patient care around the peri-operative period and patient outcomes post surgery are key topics for the journal. All grades of surgery from minor cosmetic interventions to major surgical procedures will be covered. Novel techniques and the utilization of new instruments and materials, including implants and prostheses that optimize outcomes constitute major areas of interest. Contributions regarding patient satisfaction, preference, quality of life, and their role in optimizing new surgical procedures will be welcomed. The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of case reports, clinical studies, reviews and original research.
×
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