Suppr超能文献

机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术是否优于标准开放性根治性膀胱切除术?来自印度的观点。

Is robot-assisted radical cystectomy superior to standard open radical cystectomy? An Indian perspective.

作者信息

Ram Dharma, Rajappa Suhas K, Rawal Sudhir, Singh Amitabh, Singh Prem B, Dewan Ajay K

机构信息

Department of Surgical Oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, New Delhi, India.

Department of Uro-oncology, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Center, New Delhi, India.

出版信息

J Minim Access Surg. 2018 Oct-Dec;14(4):298-303. doi: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_150_17.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Open radical cystectomy (ORC) has been the standard treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer, but this is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) has been proposed as minimally invasive alternative with improved morbidity and acceptable oncological outcomes, but a large series featuring RARC and their comparison with ORC is still lacking in India despite more than a decade of its inception. We have conducted this study with an objective to see the feasibility of RARC in the Indian context and compare it with contemporary standard.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study conducted at two tertiary cancer institutes. We have evaluated the patients pertaining to operative and early post-operative factors from January 2014 to December 2015. Necessary statistical tests applied to see comparability of the arms and their outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients underwent surgery for carcinoma bladder (45 ORC while 125 RARC). Intraoperative blood loss (RARC and ORC: 228 and 529 ml) and average transfusion rate were lower with RARC. A trend towards benefit was noted in favour of robotic arm in terms of mean complication rate (RARC and ORC: 54 and 39%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study has shown comparable surgical and early post-operative outcomes with clear advantage of robotic approach in terms of intraoperative blood transfusion and lymph node yield. Although the study was non-randomised in nature, it should provide substantial evidence on safety and feasibility of RARC in the Indian context and a reference point of evidence to look ahead.

摘要

引言

开放性根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)一直是肌层浸润性膀胱癌的标准治疗方法,但它会带来较高的发病率和死亡率。机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)已被提出作为一种微创替代方案,具有较低的发病率和可接受的肿瘤学结果。然而,尽管RARC已经出现了十多年,但在印度仍缺乏关于RARC及其与ORC比较的大型系列研究。我们开展这项研究的目的是了解RARC在印度背景下的可行性,并将其与当代标准进行比较。

方法

这是一项在两家三级癌症研究所进行的前瞻性队列研究。我们评估了2014年1月至2015年12月期间患者的手术及术后早期相关因素。应用必要的统计检验来观察两组的可比性及其结果。

结果

共有170例膀胱癌患者接受了手术(45例行ORC,125例行RARC)。RARC组术中失血量(RARC和ORC分别为228毫升和529毫升)和平均输血率较低。在平均并发症发生率方面(RARC和ORC分别为54%和39%),机器人手术组有更优的趋势。

结论

本研究显示了可比的手术及术后早期结果,机器人手术方法在术中输血和淋巴结获取方面具有明显优势。尽管该研究本质上是非随机的,但它应能为RARC在印度背景下的安全性和可行性提供大量证据,并为未来提供一个参考依据。

相似文献

1
Is robot-assisted radical cystectomy superior to standard open radical cystectomy? An Indian perspective.
J Minim Access Surg. 2018 Oct-Dec;14(4):298-303. doi: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_150_17.
2
Systematic review and cumulative analysis of oncologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy.
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):402-22. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.008. Epub 2015 Jan 2.
3
Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy.
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):376-401. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.007. Epub 2015 Jan 2.
6
A Single-centre Early Phase Randomised Controlled Three-arm Trial of Open, Robotic, and Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy (CORAL).
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):613-621. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.038. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
8
Perioperative complications and oncological safety of robot-assisted (RARC) vs. open radical cystectomy (ORC).
Urol Oncol. 2014 Oct;32(7):966-74. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.03.023. Epub 2014 Jul 10.
9
Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted vs. open radical cystectomy.
Urol Oncol. 2018 Mar;36(3):88.e1-88.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.09.018. Epub 2017 Dec 23.
10
Lymph node dissection during radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A two-center comparative study of robotic versus open surgery.
Asian J Endosc Surg. 2023 Oct;16(4):724-730. doi: 10.1111/ases.13234. Epub 2023 Jul 25.

本文引用的文献

1
A Single-centre Early Phase Randomised Controlled Three-arm Trial of Open, Robotic, and Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy (CORAL).
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):613-621. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.038. Epub 2015 Aug 10.
2
3
Robotics in urologic oncology.
J Minim Access Surg. 2015 Jan-Mar;11(1):40-4. doi: 10.4103/0972-9941.147687.
4
Robotic surgery is ready for prime time in India: For the motion.
J Minim Access Surg. 2015 Jan-Mar;11(1):2-4. doi: 10.4103/0972-9941.147649.
5
Comparing Open Radical Cystectomy and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1042-1050. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.043. Epub 2014 Dec 8.
6
Robotic vs. open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Nov;40(11):1399-411. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.03.008. Epub 2014 Mar 28.
9
Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: identification of patients who benefit from the robotic approach.
J Endourol. 2013 Jan;27(1):40-4. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0168. Epub 2012 Oct 11.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验