Peri-Operative Outcomes after Open and Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy by Using an Advanced Bipolar Seal and Cut Technology (Caiman®): A Prospective, Comparative, and Multi-Institutional Study.
Bladder cancer
Open radical cystectomy
Robot-assisted radical cystectomy
Sealing device
Journal
Current urology
ISSN: 1661-7649
Titre abrégé: Curr Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101471188
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Mar 2019
08 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
06
09
2017
accepted:
28
11
2017
entrez:
23
5
2019
pubmed:
23
5
2019
medline:
23
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To report and compare the peri-operative outcomes of patients undergoing open (ORC) and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for bladder cancer performed with a radiofrequency seal and cut device (Caiman®). Data of patients undergoing ORC or RARC between January 2015 and March 2016 at 6 Italian institutions were prospectively recorded and analyzed. Thirty-and 90-day complications were stratified according to the Martin's criteria and graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Data on operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and length of stay were evaluated and compared between the ORC and RARC groups. Thirty-three (66%) and 17 (34%) patients were treated with ORC and RARC, respectively. The median age was 72 (64-78) years. Overall operative time was longer in RARC compared to ORC (389 ± 80.1 vs. 242 ± 62.2 min, p < 0.001), while the estimated blood loss during cystectomy was higher after ORC (370 ± 126.8 vs. 243.3 ± 201.6 ml, p = 0.03). The transfusion rate was significantly higher in the ORC compared to RARC (24.2 vs. 5.9%, p = 0.04). Eight (19%) and 7 (16.7%) patients experienced 30- and 90-day post-operative complications, with no significant difference between ORC and RARC. Length of stay was significantly shorter in RARC group (median 7 vs. 14 days, p < 0.001). Open and robot-assisted procedures were safely performed by using a new advanced bipolar seal and cut technology (Caiman®). RARC demonstrated to be superior to ORC in terms of bleeding, transfusion rates and length of hospital stay, despite longer operative time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31114462
doi: 10.1159/000489421
pii: cur-0012-0064
pmc: PMC6504802
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
64-69Références
J Urol. 2013 Feb;189(2):474-9
pubmed: 23017529
Eur Urol. 2015 Jun;67(6):1042-1050
pubmed: 25496767
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 31;10(3):e0121032
pubmed: 25825873
Eur Urol. 2015 Mar;67(3):376-401
pubmed: 25560798
BMC Urol. 2016 Sep 23;16(1):59
pubmed: 27664079
Eur Urol. 2014 Apr;65(4):778-92
pubmed: 24373477
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2013 Jun;11(2):189-97
pubmed: 23332639
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Nov;42(11):1736-1743
pubmed: 27032295
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):613-621
pubmed: 26272237
Ann Surg. 2002 Jun;235(6):803-13
pubmed: 12035036
Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):195-202
pubmed: 27133087
Int Urol Nephrol. 2013 Jun;45(3):711-9
pubmed: 23666588
Urol Oncol. 2014 Jan;32(1):45.e11-5
pubmed: 24054870
Eur Urol. 2013 Oct;64(4):639-53
pubmed: 23827737
Int Braz J Urol. 2016 Jul-Aug;42(4):663-70
pubmed: 27564275
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012 Jul;42(7):625-31
pubmed: 22581913
BJU Int. 2013 Aug;112(4):E290-4
pubmed: 23815802
J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):951-4
pubmed: 12576820
Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
pubmed: 19638912
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013 Jul;39(7):792-8
pubmed: 23562571