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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lin, Juntao, Hu, Zhenghui, Huang, Shihan, Shen, Bohua, Wang, Shuo, Yu, Jianjun, Wang, Ping, Jin, Xiaodong
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