Soria Francesco, Moschini Marco, D'andrea David, Abufaraj Mohammad, Foerster Beat, Mathiéu Romain, Gust Killian M, Gontero Paolo, Simone Giuseppe, Meraney Anoop, Krishna Suprita, Konety Badrinath, Rouprêt Morgan, Perry Matthew, Rowe Edward, Ploussard Guillaume, Boorjian Stephen A, Wiklund Peter, Sooriakumaran Prasanna, Shariat Shahrokh F
Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Division of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna General Hospital, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.
Eur Urol Focus. 2020 Nov 15;6(6):1233-1239. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2018.11.002. Epub 2018 Nov 16.
The comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) in terms of perioperative outcomes is still a matter of debate affecting payors, physicians, and patients.
To evaluate comparative perioperative and longer-term morbidity of RARC versus ORC in a multicenter contemporary retrospective cohort of patients.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective multicenter study included patients with bladder cancer treated with radical cystectomy at 10 academic centers between 2000 and 2017.
Intraoperative outcomes including blood loss and operative time as well as postoperative outcomes including time to discharge, complication, readmission, reoperation, and mortality rates at 30 and 90 d were assessed. Multiple imputation and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used. IPTW-multivariable-adjusted regression and logistic analyses were performed to evaluate the associations of RARC versus ORC with perioperative outcomes at 30 and 90 d.
Overall, 1887 patients (1197 RARC and 690 ORC) were included in the study. After IPTW-adjusted analysis, no differences between the groups in terms of preoperative characteristics were observed. RARC was associated with lower blood loss (p<0.001), shorter length of stay (p<0.001), and longer operative time (p=0.007). On IPTW-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses, no differences in terms of 30- and 90-d complications, reoperation, and mortality rates were observed. RARC was independently associated with a higher readmission rate at both 30 and 90 d. Limitations are mainly related to the retrospective nature of the study.
While RARC was associated with less blood loss and shorter hospital stay, it also led to longer operation times and more readmissions. There were no differences in 30- and 90-d complications. Because there are no apparent differences in safety between ORC and RARC in expert centers, differences in oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes are likely to drive decision making regarding RARC utilization.
In this study we investigated the differences between RARC and ORC in terms of perioperative outcomes. We found no difference in early and late complications. We concluded that, to date, differences in oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes should drive decision making regarding RARC utilization.
机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术(RARC)与开放性根治性膀胱切除术(ORC)在围手术期结局方面的比较有效性仍是一个影响支付方、医生和患者的争议问题。
在一个多中心当代回顾性队列患者中评估RARC与ORC的围手术期及长期发病率。
设计、设置和参与者:这项回顾性多中心研究纳入了2000年至2017年期间在10个学术中心接受根治性膀胱切除术治疗的膀胱癌患者。
评估术中结局,包括失血量和手术时间,以及术后结局,包括出院时间、并发症、再入院、再次手术以及30天和90天的死亡率。采用多重填补法和治疗权重逆概率法(IPTW)。进行IPTW多变量调整回归和逻辑分析,以评估RARC与ORC在30天和90天时与围手术期结局的关联。
总体而言,1887例患者(1197例RARC和690例ORC)纳入研究。经过IPTW调整分析,两组在术前特征方面未观察到差异。RARC与较少的失血量(p<0.001)、较短的住院时间(p<0.001)和较长的手术时间(p=0.007)相关。在IPTW调整的多变量逻辑回归分析中,在30天和90天的并发症、再次手术和死亡率方面未观察到差异。RARC在30天和90天时均与较高的再入院率独立相关。局限性主要与研究的回顾性性质有关。
虽然RARC与较少的失血量和较短的住院时间相关,但它也导致更长的手术时间和更多的再入院。30天和90天的并发症无差异。由于在专家中心ORC和RARC之间在安全性方面没有明显差异,肿瘤学和成本效益结局的差异可能会推动关于RARC应用的决策。
在本研究中,我们调查了RARC和ORC在围手术期结局方面的差异。我们发现早期和晚期并发症无差异。我们得出结论,迄今为止,肿瘤学和成本效益结局的差异应推动关于RARC应用的决策。