Cargando…
Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study
PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of L-RPLND, R-RPLND and O-RPLND, and determine which one can be the mainstream option. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 47 patients undergoing primary RPLND by three different surgical techniques for stage I–II NSGCT between July...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10352171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37332060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04459-z |
_version_ | 1785074460905177088 |
---|---|
author | Lin, Juntao Hu, Zhenghui Huang, Shihan Shen, Bohua Wang, Shuo Yu, Jianjun Wang, Ping Jin, Xiaodong |
author_facet | Lin, Juntao Hu, Zhenghui Huang, Shihan Shen, Bohua Wang, Shuo Yu, Jianjun Wang, Ping Jin, Xiaodong |
author_sort | Lin, Juntao |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of L-RPLND, R-RPLND and O-RPLND, and determine which one can be the mainstream option. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 47 patients undergoing primary RPLND by three different surgical techniques for stage I–II NSGCT between July 2011 and April 2022 at our center. Standard open and laparoscopic RPLND was performed with usual equipment, and robotic RPLND was operated with da Vinci Si system. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients underwent RPLND during 2011–2022, and 26 (55.3%) of them received L-RPLND, 14 (29.8%) were operated with robot, while 7 (14.9%) were performed O-RPLND. The median follow-up was 48.0 months, 48.0 months, and 60.0 months, respectively. The oncological outcomes were comparable among all groups. In L-RPLND group, there were 8 (30.8%) cases of low grade (Clavien I–II) complications, and 3 (11.5%) cases of high-grade (Clavien III–IV) complications. In R-RPLND group, one (7.1%) low-grade complication and four (28.6%) high-grade complications were observed. In O-RPLND group, there were 2 (28.5%) cases of low-grade complications and one case (14.2%) of high-grade one. The operation duration of L-RPLND was the shortest. In O-RPLND group, the number of positive lymph nodes were higher than other two groups. Patients undergoing open surgery had lower (p < 0.05) red blood cell count, hemoglobin level, and higher (p < 0.05) estimated blood loss, white blood cell count than those receiving either laparoscopic or robotic surgery. CONCLUSION: All three surgical techniques are comparable in safety, oncological, andrological, and reproductive outcomes under the circumstance of not using primary chemotherapy. L-RPLND might be the most cost-effective option. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10352171 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103521712023-07-19 Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study Lin, Juntao Hu, Zhenghui Huang, Shihan Shen, Bohua Wang, Shuo Yu, Jianjun Wang, Ping Jin, Xiaodong World J Urol Original Article PURPOSE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of L-RPLND, R-RPLND and O-RPLND, and determine which one can be the mainstream option. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 47 patients undergoing primary RPLND by three different surgical techniques for stage I–II NSGCT between July 2011 and April 2022 at our center. Standard open and laparoscopic RPLND was performed with usual equipment, and robotic RPLND was operated with da Vinci Si system. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients underwent RPLND during 2011–2022, and 26 (55.3%) of them received L-RPLND, 14 (29.8%) were operated with robot, while 7 (14.9%) were performed O-RPLND. The median follow-up was 48.0 months, 48.0 months, and 60.0 months, respectively. The oncological outcomes were comparable among all groups. In L-RPLND group, there were 8 (30.8%) cases of low grade (Clavien I–II) complications, and 3 (11.5%) cases of high-grade (Clavien III–IV) complications. In R-RPLND group, one (7.1%) low-grade complication and four (28.6%) high-grade complications were observed. In O-RPLND group, there were 2 (28.5%) cases of low-grade complications and one case (14.2%) of high-grade one. The operation duration of L-RPLND was the shortest. In O-RPLND group, the number of positive lymph nodes were higher than other two groups. Patients undergoing open surgery had lower (p < 0.05) red blood cell count, hemoglobin level, and higher (p < 0.05) estimated blood loss, white blood cell count than those receiving either laparoscopic or robotic surgery. CONCLUSION: All three surgical techniques are comparable in safety, oncological, andrological, and reproductive outcomes under the circumstance of not using primary chemotherapy. L-RPLND might be the most cost-effective option. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2023-06-19 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10352171/ /pubmed/37332060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04459-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Lin, Juntao Hu, Zhenghui Huang, Shihan Shen, Bohua Wang, Shuo Yu, Jianjun Wang, Ping Jin, Xiaodong Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study |
title | Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study |
title_full | Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study |
title_short | Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study |
title_sort | comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10352171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37332060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-023-04459-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT linjuntao comparisonoflaparoscopicroboticandopenretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfornonseminomatousgermcelltumorasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT huzhenghui comparisonoflaparoscopicroboticandopenretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfornonseminomatousgermcelltumorasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT huangshihan comparisonoflaparoscopicroboticandopenretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfornonseminomatousgermcelltumorasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT shenbohua comparisonoflaparoscopicroboticandopenretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfornonseminomatousgermcelltumorasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT wangshuo comparisonoflaparoscopicroboticandopenretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfornonseminomatousgermcelltumorasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT yujianjun comparisonoflaparoscopicroboticandopenretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfornonseminomatousgermcelltumorasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT wangping comparisonoflaparoscopicroboticandopenretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfornonseminomatousgermcelltumorasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy AT jinxiaodong comparisonoflaparoscopicroboticandopenretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfornonseminomatousgermcelltumorasinglecenterretrospectivecohortstudy |