Robotic versus Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph node Dissection for Clinical Stage I Non-seminomatous Germ Cell Tumor of Testis: A Comparative Analysis
Urology Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 06 (2021),
18 January 2022
,
Page 618-622
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i06.6629
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the treatment outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) versus laparoscopic RPLND (L-RPLND) for clinical stage I non-seminomatous germ cell testicular tumors (NSGCTs).
Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients with stage I NSGCTs who underwent
robotic or laparoscopic RPLND between 2008 and 2017. Perioperative data and oncologic outcomes were reviewed and compared between the two groups. Progression-free survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and compared between two groups.
Results: A total of 31 and 28 patients underwent R-RPLND and L-RPLND respectively. The preoperative characteristics of the patients were comparable in the two groups. Patients in R-RPLND group had significantly shorter median operative time (140 vs. 175 minutes, P < .001), a shorter median duration to surgical drain removal (2 vs. 4 days, P = .002) and a shorter median postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days, P = .001). There were no statistical differences in intra- and post-operative complication rate between the groups and the oncologic outcomes were similar in the two groups.
Conclusion: In expert hands, R-RPLND and L-RPLND were comparable in oncological parameter and morbidity
rate; R-RPLND showed superiority in operation duration, median days to surgical drain removal and postoperative
hospital stay for stage I NSGCTs. Multicenter and randomized studies with good power of study and sufficient
follow-up duration are required to validate our result.
- Nonseminomatous germ cell tumor;
- Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection;
- Robotic surgical procedures;
- Lapraroscopy;
- Treatment outcomes
How to Cite
References
2. de Wit R. Optimal management of clinical stage I nonseminoma: new data for patients to consider. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3792-93.
3. Chalfin HJ, Ludwig W, Pierorazio PM, et al. Robotic Primary RPLND for Stage I Testicular Cancer: a Review of Indications and Outcomes. Current urology reports. 2016;17:41.
4. Baniel J, Foster RS, Rowland RG, et al. Complications of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. The Journal of urology. 1994;152:424-27.
5. Baniel J, Sella A. Complications of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: primary and post-chemotherapy. Seminars in surgical oncology. 1999;17:263-67.
6. Rukstalis DB, Chodak GW. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in a patient with stage 1 testicular carcinoma. The Journal of urology. 1992;148:1907-1909; discussion 1909-10.
7. Underwood W, Kim HL. Intermediate-term oncological efficacy of laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. BJU international. 2012;109:281-85.
8. Steiner H, Leonhartsberger N, Stoehr B, et al. Postchemotherapy laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for low-volume, stage II, nonseminomatous germ cell tumor: first 100 patients. European urology. 2013;63:1013-17.
9. Hyams ES, Pierorazio P, Proteek O, et al. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumor: a large single institution experience. The Journal of urology. 2012;187:487-92.
10. Davol P, Sumfest J, Rukstalis D. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Urology. 2006;67:199.
11. Jain S, Gautam G. Robotics in urologic oncology. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11:40-44.
12. Pearce SM, Golan S, Gorin MA, et al. Safety and Early Oncologic Effectiveness of Primary Robotic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Testicular Cancer. European urology. 2017;71:476-82.
13. Stepanian S, Patel M, Porter J. Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer: Evolution of the Technique. European urology. 2016;70:661-67.
14. Cheney SM, Andrews PE, Leibovich BC, et al. Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: technique and initial case series of 18 patients. BJU international. 2015;115:114-20.
15. Harris KT, Gorin MA, Ball MW, et al. A comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. BJU international. 2015;116:920-23.
16. Filippou P, Ferguson JE, 3rd, Nielsen ME. Epidemiology of Prostate and Testicular Cancer. Seminars in interventional radiology. 2016;33:182-85.
17. Rosen A, Jayram G, Drazer M, et al. Global trends in testicular cancer incidence and mortality. European urology. 2011;60:374-79.
18. Fernandez EB, Moul JW, Foley JP, et al. Retroperitoneal imaging with third and fourth generation computed axial tomography in clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Urology. 1994;44:548-52.
19. Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, et al. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2011;8:1503-12.
20. Bhattu AS, Ganpule A, Sabnis RB, et al. Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy vs Standard Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy: A Prospective Randomized Comparative Study. Journal of endourology. 2015;29:1334-40.
21. Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, et al. Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. The Journal of urology. 2009;182:866-72.
22. Nicolai N, Tarabelloni N, Gasperoni F, et al. Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Clinical Stage I Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors of the Testis: Safety and Efficacy Analyses at a High Volume Center. The Journal of urology. 2018; 199:741-47.
- Abstract Viewed: 397 times
- 6629/pdf Downloaded: 303 times