Department of Surgery, Oncology, and Gastroenterology - Urology Clinic, University of Padua, Italy.
Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):376-401. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.007. Epub 2015 Jan 2.
Although open radical cystectomy (ORC) is still the standard approach, laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) have gained popularity.
To report a systematic literature review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications of RARC in comparison with ORC and LRC.
Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched using a free-text protocol including the terms robot-assisted radical cystectomy or da Vinci radical cystectomy or robot* radical cystectomy. RARC case series and studies comparing RARC with either ORC or LRC were collected. Cumulative analysis was conducted.
The searches retrieved 105 papers. According to the different diversion type, overall mean operative time ranged from 360 to 420 min. Similarly, mean blood loss ranged from 260 to 480 ml. Mean in-hospital stay was about 9 d for all diversion types, with consistently high readmission rates. In series reporting on RARC with either extracorporeal or intracorporeal conduit diversion, overall 90-d complication rates were 59% (high-grade complication: 15%). In series reporting RARC with intracorporeal continent diversion, the overall 30-d complication rate was 45.7% (high-grade complication: 28%). Reported mortality rates were ≤3% for all diversion types. Comparing RARC and ORC, cumulative analyses demonstrated shorter operative time for ORC, whereas blood loss and in-hospital stay were better with RARC (all p values <0.003). Moreover, 90-d complication rates of any-grade and 90-d grade 3 complication rates were lower for RARC (all p values <0.04), whereas high-grade complication and mortality rates were similar.
RARC can be performed safely with acceptable perioperative outcome, although complications are common. Cumulative analyses demonstrated that operative time was shorter with ORC, whereas RARC may provide some advantages in terms of blood loss and transfusion rates and, more limitedly, for postoperative complication rates over ORC and LRC.
Although open radical cystectomy (RC) is still regarded as a standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, laparoscopic and robot-assisted RC are becoming more popular. Robotic RC can be safely performed with acceptably low risk of blood loss, transfusion, and intraoperative complications; however, as for open RC, the risk of postoperative complications is high, including a substantial risk of major complication and reoperation.
虽然开放性根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)仍然是标准治疗方法,但腹腔镜根治性膀胱切除术(LRC)和机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)已经越来越受欢迎。
报告一项系统文献回顾和 RARC 与 ORC 和 LRC 比较的围手术期结果和并发症的累积分析。
使用包括机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术或达芬奇根治性膀胱切除术或机器人*根治性膀胱切除术等自由文本方案,在 Medline、Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库中进行搜索。收集了 RARC 病例系列和比较 RARC 与 ORC 或 LRC 的研究。进行了累积分析。
检索到 105 篇论文。根据不同的分流类型,总体平均手术时间范围为 360 至 420 分钟。同样,平均失血量范围为 260 至 480 毫升。所有分流类型的平均住院时间约为 9 天,且再入院率一直很高。在报告 RARC 与体外或体内导管分流的系列中,90 天总体并发症发生率为 59%(高级别并发症:15%)。在报告 RARC 与体内连续分流的系列中,30 天总体并发症发生率为 45.7%(高级别并发症:28%)。所有分流类型的报告死亡率均≤3%。比较 RARC 和 ORC,累积分析表明 ORC 的手术时间更短,而 RARC 的失血量和住院时间更好(所有 p 值均<0.003)。此外,RARC 的任何级别的 90 天并发症发生率和 90 天 3 级并发症发生率较低(所有 p 值均<0.04),而高级别并发症和死亡率相似。
RARC 可以安全进行,围手术期结果可接受,尽管并发症常见。累积分析表明,ORC 的手术时间更短,而 RARC 在失血量和输血率方面可能具有优势,并且在术后并发症发生率方面也可能优于 ORC 和 LRC。
虽然开放性根治性膀胱切除术(RC)仍然被认为是肌层浸润性膀胱癌的标准治疗方法,但腹腔镜和机器人辅助 RC 越来越受欢迎。机器人 RC 可以安全进行,失血量、输血和术中并发症的风险可接受;然而,与开放性 RC 一样,术后并发症的风险很高,包括主要并发症和再次手术的高风险。