Key steps in performing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion and the evidence that we have so far

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urological Science Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.4103/UROS.UROS_108_20
J. Teoh, C. Yee, P. Chiu, V. Chan, E. Chan, C. Ng, E. Chan
{"title":"Key steps in performing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion and the evidence that we have so far","authors":"J. Teoh, C. Yee, P. Chiu, V. Chan, E. Chan, C. Ng, E. Chan","doi":"10.4103/UROS.UROS_108_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) has been proposed as the most minimally invasive surgical approach in performing radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer. However, iRARC is a highly technical and complex procedure with a steep learning curve. Without appropriate training and adequate experiences, iRARC may become a lengthy procedure and may lead to significant morbidities with a prolonged hospital stay. Essentially, the robotic approach in performing RARC is to replicate what is being done in the open approach, and the key steps in performing iRARC were described in this article. There were five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing between RARC and open radical cystectomy (ORC). RARC has been shown to have a lower blood transfusion rate and short hospital stay than ORC. When compared to ORC, RARC had a similar positive surgical margin rate and time of recurrence. Given such potential benefits, a decision-analytic model has shown that RARC might be a more cost-effective treatment approach than ORC. On the other hand, previous RCTs focused mainly on RARC with extracorporeal urinary diversion; high-quality studies on the total intracorporeal approach are lacking. The iROC trial is a multicenter study comparing between iRARC and ORC. Preliminary results showed that iRARC is well tolerated by patients. The iROC trial has completed patient recruitment and the final results are eagerly awaited. By then, hopefully, we will be able to understand the true value of iRARC in managing patients with bladder cancer.","PeriodicalId":23449,"journal":{"name":"Urological Science","volume":"32 1","pages":"46 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urological Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/UROS.UROS_108_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) has been proposed as the most minimally invasive surgical approach in performing radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer. However, iRARC is a highly technical and complex procedure with a steep learning curve. Without appropriate training and adequate experiences, iRARC may become a lengthy procedure and may lead to significant morbidities with a prolonged hospital stay. Essentially, the robotic approach in performing RARC is to replicate what is being done in the open approach, and the key steps in performing iRARC were described in this article. There were five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing between RARC and open radical cystectomy (ORC). RARC has been shown to have a lower blood transfusion rate and short hospital stay than ORC. When compared to ORC, RARC had a similar positive surgical margin rate and time of recurrence. Given such potential benefits, a decision-analytic model has shown that RARC might be a more cost-effective treatment approach than ORC. On the other hand, previous RCTs focused mainly on RARC with extracorporeal urinary diversion; high-quality studies on the total intracorporeal approach are lacking. The iROC trial is a multicenter study comparing between iRARC and ORC. Preliminary results showed that iRARC is well tolerated by patients. The iROC trial has completed patient recruitment and the final results are eagerly awaited. By then, hopefully, we will be able to understand the true value of iRARC in managing patients with bladder cancer.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
进行机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术的关键步骤和体内尿路改道以及我们迄今为止的证据
机器人辅助膀胱根治性切除术(iRARC)已被认为是癌症患者进行膀胱根治性膀胱切除术的最微创手术方法。然而,iRARC是一个技术性很强、复杂的过程,具有陡峭的学习曲线。如果没有适当的培训和足够的经验,iRARC可能会成为一个漫长的过程,并可能导致长期住院的严重疾病。从本质上讲,执行RARC的机器人方法是复制开放方法中正在做的事情,本文描述了执行iRARC的关键步骤。有五项随机对照试验比较RARC和开放性根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)。RARC已被证明比ORC具有更低的输血率和更短的住院时间。与ORC相比,RARC具有相似的阳性手术切缘率和复发时间。考虑到这些潜在的好处,决策分析模型表明,RARC可能是一种比ORC更具成本效益的治疗方法。另一方面,以前的随机对照试验主要关注体外尿路分流的RARC;缺乏关于整体内部方法的高质量研究。iROC试验是一项比较iRARC和ORC的多中心研究。初步结果表明,iRARC对患者具有良好的耐受性。iROC试验已经完成了患者招募,人们热切期待最终结果。到那时,我们有望了解iRARC在管理癌症患者方面的真正价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Urological Science
Urological Science UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Clinical guidelines of patient-centered bladder management of neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction due to chronic spinal cord injury – Part 3: Surgical treatment in chronic spinal cord injured patients Collecting duct carcinoma of the kidney: Clinicopathological profile and outcomes “Rule of Five” in Ureteral Dilatation and its Role in Ureteral Access Sheath Placement during Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Testicular tumor patients presented with scrotal violation-nonstandard surgical approach and its survival rate Level of scientific evidence underlying recommendations arising from the functional urology guidelines
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1