Higher nodal yield with robot-assisted pelvic lymph node dissection for bladder cancer compared to laparoscopic dissection: implications for more accurate staging.
Bladder cancer
laparoscopic
pelvic lymph node dissection
radical cystectomy
robotic
Journal
Arab journal of urology
ISSN: 2090-598X
Titre abrégé: Arab J Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101562480
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2020
01 Oct 2020
Historique:
entrez:
25
3
2021
pubmed:
26
3
2021
medline:
26
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the lymph node (LN) yield and adequacy of laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection (L-PLND) and robot-assisted PLND (R-PLND), as PLND is a fundamental component of radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer (BCa), where a positive status is the most powerful predictor of disease recurrence and survival. We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing RC with PLND for BCa from January 2007 to July 2019 and grouped them in to L- and R-PLND. Until 2011, patients underwent a standard PLND (S-PLND) with the cranial limit as bifurcation of common iliac artery. Since 2012, an extended PLND (E-PLND) up to aortic bifurcation has been performed. An adequate S- and E-PLND were defined as those that yielded at least 10 and 16 LNs, respectively. The groups were compared for LN yield and adequacy of PLND. During the study period, 305 patients underwent minimally invasive RC in our centre, of which 274 (89.8%) underwent a concomitant PLND (98 L-PLND, 176 R-PLND). R-PLND resulted in a significantly greater median LN yield compared to L-PLND, both in the S-PLND (16 vs 11, R-PLND leads to a higher LN yield and a greater probability of an adequate PLND compared to L-PLND for both standard and extended templates. Therefore, the robot-assisted approach would lead to more accurate staging following RC with PLND.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33763254
doi: 10.1080/2090598X.2020.1824570
pii: 1824570
pmc: PMC7954504
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
92-97Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflict of interest.
Références
J Endourol. 2010 Sep;24(9):1435-40
pubmed: 20839973
Int Urol Nephrol. 2020 Jul;52(7):1243-1254
pubmed: 32078116
J Endourol. 2007 Mar;21(3):325-9
pubmed: 17444780
Eur Urol Focus. 2016 Apr;2(1):19-29
pubmed: 28723446
Eur Urol. 2016 Apr;69(4):613-621
pubmed: 26272237
J Urol. 2007 Dec;178(6):2340-3
pubmed: 17936813
Cancer. 2008 Jun;112(11):2401-8
pubmed: 18383515
J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):946-50
pubmed: 12576819
Eur Urol. 2010 Jan;57(1):71-8
pubmed: 19577355
BJU Int. 2000 May;85(7):817-23
pubmed: 10792159
Cancer. 2006 Nov 15;107(10):2368-74
pubmed: 17041887
J Urol. 2008 Mar;179(3):873-8; discussion 878
pubmed: 18221953
J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1809-12
pubmed: 15540725
Int J Surg Oncol. 2011;2011:758189
pubmed: 22312522
J Endourol. 2016 Jul;30(7):783-91
pubmed: 27055782
J Urol. 2010 Feb;183(2):510-4
pubmed: 20006884
Cancer. 2010 Apr 15;116(8):1901-8
pubmed: 20186823
Eur Urol. 2005 Jun;47(6):780-4
pubmed: 15925073
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 1;19(3):666-75
pubmed: 11157016
Eur Urol. 2011 Nov;60(5):946-52
pubmed: 21802833
J Endourol. 2008 Jun;22(6):1297-302
pubmed: 18498233
Eur Urol. 2009 Apr;55(4):826-35
pubmed: 19150582
J Urol. 2004 Jan;171(1):139-44
pubmed: 14665862
BJU Int. 2008 Jul;102(2):231-4; discussion 234
pubmed: 18325058
J Endourol. 2010 Mar;24(3):409-13
pubmed: 20218885
J Urol. 2002 Mar;167(3):1295-8
pubmed: 11832716
BJU Int. 2009 May;103(10):1359-62
pubmed: 19076140
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2009 Feb;19(1):71-4
pubmed: 19288592
Urology. 2016 Feb;88:97-103
pubmed: 26683751
J Urol. 2012 Feb;187(2):446-50
pubmed: 22177147
Eur Urol. 2017 Mar;71(3):462-475
pubmed: 27375033
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Oct;17(5):e1048-e1053
pubmed: 31303560