Cargando…

Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre

OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine if robot‐assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R‐RPLND) can be performed as a safe option to open RPLND in selected patients with metastatic germ cell cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This population‐based prospective study was performed at a one of two nationa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grenabo Bergdahl, Anna, Månsson, Marianne, Holmberg, Göran, Fovaeus, Magnus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.149
_version_ 1784762133475491840
author Grenabo Bergdahl, Anna
Månsson, Marianne
Holmberg, Göran
Fovaeus, Magnus
author_facet Grenabo Bergdahl, Anna
Månsson, Marianne
Holmberg, Göran
Fovaeus, Magnus
author_sort Grenabo Bergdahl, Anna
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine if robot‐assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R‐RPLND) can be performed as a safe option to open RPLND in selected patients with metastatic germ cell cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This population‐based prospective study was performed at a one of two national referral centres for RPLND in Sweden. All patients referred during January 2017–March 2021 were screened for possible inclusion. R‐RPLND was performed using the Da Vinci Xi surgical system. Perioperative parameters, postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo), final pathology, preservation of antegrade ejaculation and relapse rates were evaluated. Classifiers for selecting patients to open versus robotic RPLND were analysed by logistic regression modelling. The median follow‐up was 23 months. RESULTS: Of 87 patients referred, 29 were selected for R‐RPLND, 19 in a post‐chemotherapy setting. In median, retroperitoneal tumour diameter was 18 mm, BMI 24 kg/m(2), operative time 433 min, estimated blood loss 50 ml and length of stay 3 days. One patient underwent open conversion due to failure to progress. Four patients had Clavien–Dindo grade 3 complications, of which three were chylous‐related. No in‐field recurrences occurred during follow‐up. CONCLUSION: This population‐based study suggests that R‐RPLND can be safely performed in at least one third of patients referred for an RPLND. A relatively high rate of lymph‐leakage may represent a potential drawback. Tumour size may be the most important discriminator when deciding on robotic versus open RPLND. Further studies with longer follow‐up are needed to validate the results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9349583
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93495832022-08-09 Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre Grenabo Bergdahl, Anna Månsson, Marianne Holmberg, Göran Fovaeus, Magnus BJUI Compass To the Drawing Board OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine if robot‐assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R‐RPLND) can be performed as a safe option to open RPLND in selected patients with metastatic germ cell cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This population‐based prospective study was performed at a one of two national referral centres for RPLND in Sweden. All patients referred during January 2017–March 2021 were screened for possible inclusion. R‐RPLND was performed using the Da Vinci Xi surgical system. Perioperative parameters, postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo), final pathology, preservation of antegrade ejaculation and relapse rates were evaluated. Classifiers for selecting patients to open versus robotic RPLND were analysed by logistic regression modelling. The median follow‐up was 23 months. RESULTS: Of 87 patients referred, 29 were selected for R‐RPLND, 19 in a post‐chemotherapy setting. In median, retroperitoneal tumour diameter was 18 mm, BMI 24 kg/m(2), operative time 433 min, estimated blood loss 50 ml and length of stay 3 days. One patient underwent open conversion due to failure to progress. Four patients had Clavien–Dindo grade 3 complications, of which three were chylous‐related. No in‐field recurrences occurred during follow‐up. CONCLUSION: This population‐based study suggests that R‐RPLND can be safely performed in at least one third of patients referred for an RPLND. A relatively high rate of lymph‐leakage may represent a potential drawback. Tumour size may be the most important discriminator when deciding on robotic versus open RPLND. Further studies with longer follow‐up are needed to validate the results. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9349583/ /pubmed/35950045 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.149 Text en © 2022 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle To the Drawing Board
Grenabo Bergdahl, Anna
Månsson, Marianne
Holmberg, Göran
Fovaeus, Magnus
Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre
title Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre
title_full Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre
title_fullStr Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre
title_full_unstemmed Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre
title_short Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre
title_sort robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre
topic To the Drawing Board
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9349583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35950045
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.149
work_keys_str_mv AT grenabobergdahlanna roboticretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfortesticularcanceratanationalreferralcentre
AT manssonmarianne roboticretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfortesticularcanceratanationalreferralcentre
AT holmberggoran roboticretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfortesticularcanceratanationalreferralcentre
AT fovaeusmagnus roboticretroperitoneallymphnodedissectionfortesticularcanceratanationalreferralcentre