Cargando…

Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art

OBJECTIVE: To perform a narrative review about the role of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (R-RPLND) in the management of testicular cancer. METHODS: A PubMed search for all relevant publications regarding the R-RPLND series up until August 2019 was performed. The largest series were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rodrigues, Gilberto J., Guglielmetti, Giuliano B., Orvieto, Marcelo, Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh, Patel, Vipul R., Coelho, Rafael F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Second Military Medical University 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7859427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33569270
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2020.09.002
_version_ 1783646730806362112
author Rodrigues, Gilberto J.
Guglielmetti, Giuliano B.
Orvieto, Marcelo
Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh
Patel, Vipul R.
Coelho, Rafael F.
author_facet Rodrigues, Gilberto J.
Guglielmetti, Giuliano B.
Orvieto, Marcelo
Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh
Patel, Vipul R.
Coelho, Rafael F.
author_sort Rodrigues, Gilberto J.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To perform a narrative review about the role of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (R-RPLND) in the management of testicular cancer. METHODS: A PubMed search for all relevant publications regarding the R-RPLND series up until August 2019 was performed. The largest series were identified, and weighted means calculated for outcomes using the number of patients included in each study as the weighting factor. RESULTS: Fifty-six articles of R-RPLND were identified and eight series with more than 10 patients in each were included. The weighted mean age was 31.12 years; primary and post chemotherapy R-RPLND were performed in 50.59% and 49.41% of patients. The clinical stage was I, II and III in 47.20%, 39.57% and 13.23% of patients. A modified R-RPLND template was used in 78.02% of patients, while 21.98% underwent bilateral full template. The weighted mean node yield, operative time and estimated blood loss were, respectively, 22.15 nodes, 277.35 min and 131.94 mL. The weighted mean length of hospital stay was 2 days and antegrade ejaculation was preserved in 92.12% of patients. Major post-operative complications (Clavien III or IV) occurred in 5.34%. Positive pathological nodes were detected in 24.54%, while the recurrence free survival was 95.77% with a follow-up of 21.81 months. CONCLUSION: R-RPLND has proven to be a reproducible and safe approach in experienced centers; short-term oncologic outcomes are similar to the open approach with less morbidity and shorter convalescence related to its minimal invasiveness. However, longer follow-up and new trials comparing head-to-head both techniques are expected.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7859427
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Second Military Medical University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78594272021-02-09 Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art Rodrigues, Gilberto J. Guglielmetti, Giuliano B. Orvieto, Marcelo Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh Patel, Vipul R. Coelho, Rafael F. Asian J Urol Review OBJECTIVE: To perform a narrative review about the role of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (R-RPLND) in the management of testicular cancer. METHODS: A PubMed search for all relevant publications regarding the R-RPLND series up until August 2019 was performed. The largest series were identified, and weighted means calculated for outcomes using the number of patients included in each study as the weighting factor. RESULTS: Fifty-six articles of R-RPLND were identified and eight series with more than 10 patients in each were included. The weighted mean age was 31.12 years; primary and post chemotherapy R-RPLND were performed in 50.59% and 49.41% of patients. The clinical stage was I, II and III in 47.20%, 39.57% and 13.23% of patients. A modified R-RPLND template was used in 78.02% of patients, while 21.98% underwent bilateral full template. The weighted mean node yield, operative time and estimated blood loss were, respectively, 22.15 nodes, 277.35 min and 131.94 mL. The weighted mean length of hospital stay was 2 days and antegrade ejaculation was preserved in 92.12% of patients. Major post-operative complications (Clavien III or IV) occurred in 5.34%. Positive pathological nodes were detected in 24.54%, while the recurrence free survival was 95.77% with a follow-up of 21.81 months. CONCLUSION: R-RPLND has proven to be a reproducible and safe approach in experienced centers; short-term oncologic outcomes are similar to the open approach with less morbidity and shorter convalescence related to its minimal invasiveness. However, longer follow-up and new trials comparing head-to-head both techniques are expected. Second Military Medical University 2021-01 2020-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7859427/ /pubmed/33569270 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2020.09.002 Text en © 2021 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Rodrigues, Gilberto J.
Guglielmetti, Giuliano B.
Orvieto, Marcelo
Seetharam Bhat, Kulthe Ramesh
Patel, Vipul R.
Coelho, Rafael F.
Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art
title Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art
title_full Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art
title_fullStr Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art
title_full_unstemmed Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art
title_short Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: The state of art
title_sort robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy: the state of art
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7859427/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33569270
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2020.09.002
work_keys_str_mv AT rodriguesgilbertoj robotassistedretroperitoneallymphadenectomythestateofart
AT guglielmettigiulianob robotassistedretroperitoneallymphadenectomythestateofart
AT orvietomarcelo robotassistedretroperitoneallymphadenectomythestateofart
AT seetharambhatkultheramesh robotassistedretroperitoneallymphadenectomythestateofart
AT patelvipulr robotassistedretroperitoneallymphadenectomythestateofart
AT coelhorafaelf robotassistedretroperitoneallymphadenectomythestateofart