Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy: A Single-Center Experience and a Narrative Review of Recent Evidence

5Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Radical cystectomy represents one of the most challenging surgical procedures, exhibiting a high morbidity rate. The transition to minimally invasive surgery in the field has been steep, due to either the technical complexity and prior concerns of atypical recurrences and/or peritoneal spread. More recently, a larger series of RCTs has proven the oncological safety of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). Beyond survival outcomes, the comparison between RARC and open surgery in terms of peri-operative morbidity is still ongoing. We present a single-center experience of RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion. Overall, 50% of patients had an intracorporeal neobladder reconstruction. The series confirms a low rate of complications (Clavien Dindo ≥ IIIa 7.5%) and wound infections (2.5%) and the absence of thromboembolic events. No atypical recurrences were found. To discuss these outcomes, we reviewed the literature related to RARC including level-1 evidence. PubMed and Web of Science searches were performed using the medical subject terms “robotic radical cystectomy” and “randomized controlled trial (RCT)”. Six unique RCTs comparing robot and open surgery were found. Two clinical trials dealt with RARC with an intracorporeal reconstruction of UD. Pertinent clinical outcomes are summarized and discussed. In conclusion, RARC is a complex but feasible procedure. The transition from extracorporeal urinary diversion (UD) to a complete intracorporeal reconstruction could be the key to improving peri-operative outcomes and reducing the whole morbidity of the procedure.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rocco, B., Garelli, G., Assumma, S., Turri, F., Sangalli, M., Calcagnile, T., … Sighinolfi, M. C. (2023). Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy: A Single-Center Experience and a Narrative Review of Recent Evidence. Diagnostics, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13040714

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free