Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer at a national referral centre

Lymph Node Dissection in Testicular Cancer: The State of the Art and Future Perspectives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the evolving role of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in the management of testicular cancer (TC). It explores the significance of RPLND as both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool, highlighting its contribution to accurate staging, its impact on oncological outcomes, and its influence on subsequent treatment decisions.

RECENT FINDINGS

RPLND serves as an essential diagnostic procedure, aiding in the precise assessment of lymph node involvement and guiding personalized treatment strategies. It has demonstrated therapeutic value, particularly in patients with specific risk factors and disease stages, contributing to improved oncological outcomes and survival rates. Recent studies have emphasized the importance of meticulous patient selection and nerve-sparing techniques to mitigate complications while optimizing outcomes. Additionally, modern imaging and surgical approaches have expanded the potential applications of RPLND. In the context of TC management, RPLND remains a valuable and evolving tool. Its dual role in staging and therapy underscores its relevance in contemporary urological practice. This review highlights the critical role of RPLND in enhancing patient care and shaping treatment strategies, emphasizing the need for further research to refine patient selection and surgical techniques.

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is an effective treatment for testicular tumors. In recent years, with the development of robotics, many urological procedures performed via standard laparoscopy have been replaced by robots. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) versus Non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (NR-RPLND) in testicular cancer.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for literature on robotic surgery for testicular germ cell tumors up to April 2023. The statistical and sensitivity analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean difference (MD), odds ratio(OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) effect indicators.

Results

Eight studies with 3875 patients were finally included in this study, 453 with R-RPLND and 3422 with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND)/laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND). The results showed that R-RPLND had lower rates of intraoperative blood loss (MD = -436.39; 95% CI -707.60 to -165.19; P = 0.002), transfusion (OR = 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.26; P = 0.0001), total postoperative complication rates (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; P = 0.002), and length of stay (MD=-3.74; 95% CI -4.69 to -2.78; P<0.00001). In addition, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes regarding total operative time, the incidence of postoperative complications grade≥III, abnormal ejaculation rate, lymph node yield, and postoperative recurrence rate.

Conclusions

The R-RPLND and O-RPLND/L-RPLND provide safe and effective retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Patients with R-RPLND have less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospitalization period, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery. It should be considered a viable alternative to O-RPLND/L-RPLND.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023411696.

Unilateral post-chemotherapy robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in Stage II non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: A tertiary care experience

Objective

Post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND) represents an integral component of the management of patients with non-seminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT). Modified templates have been proposed to minimize the surgical morbidity of the procedure. Moreover, the implementation of robotic surgery in this setting has been explored. We report our experience with unilateral post-chemotherapy robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-rRPLND) for clinical Stages IIA and IIB NSGCTs.

Methods

A retrospective single institution review was performed including 33 patients undergoing PC-rRPLND for Stages IIA and IIB NSGCTs between January 2015 and February 2019. Following orchiectomy, patients were scheduled for chemotherapy with three cycles of bleomycin-etoposide-cisplatin. Patients with a residual tumor of <5 cm and an ipsilateral metastatic disease on pre- and post-chemotherapy CT scans were eligible for a unilateral template in absence of rising tumor markers. Descriptive statistics were provided for demographics, clinical characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative parameters. Perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes were recorded.

Results

Overall, 7 (21.2%) patients exhibited necrosis or fibrosis; 14 (42.4%) had mature teratoma; and 12 (36.4%) had viable tumor at final histology. The median lymph node size at surgery was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] 21-36) mm. Median operative time was 180 (IQR 165-215) min and no major postoperative complications were observed. Anterograde ejaculation was preserved in 75.8% of patients. Median follow-up was 26 (IQR 19-30) months and a total of three recurrences were recorded.

Conclusion

PC-rRPLND is a reliable and technically reproducible procedure with safe oncological outcomes and acceptable postoperative ejaculatory function in well selected patients with NSGCTs.

The role of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) versus non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer.

METHODS

The statistical analysis software used Stata 17. The weighted mean difference (WMD) represents the continuous variable, and the dichotomous variable chooses the odds ratio, and calculates the 95% CI. This systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA criteria, and AMSTAR guidelines (assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews). The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. The upper limit of the search time frame was February 2023, and no lower limit was set.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 862 patients. Compared with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, RA-RPLND appears to have a shorter length of stay [WMD=-1.21, 95% CI (-1.66, -0.76), P <0.05], less estimated blood loss [WMD=-0.69, 95% CI (-1.07, -0.32), P <0.05], and lower overall complications [odds ratio=0.45, 95% CI (0.28, 0.73), P <0.05]. RA-RPLND appears to have more lymph node yields than laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection [WMD=5.73, 95% CI (1.06, 10.40), P <0.05]. However, robotic versus open/laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection had similar results in operation time, lymph node positivity rate, recurrence during follow-up, and postoperative ejaculation disorders.

CONCLUSION

RA-RPLND appears to be safe and effective for testicular cancer, but longer follow-up and more studies are needed to confirm this.

Robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) is an emerging surgical option for testicular cancer with less morbidity than open RPLND. We outline the operative technique used at our center and review contemporary evidence in the advancement of R-RPLND.

RECENT FINDINGS

R-RPLND is being applied effectively beyond clinical stage I testicular cancer to treat low-volume, clinical stage II disease in both the primary and postchemotherapy setting. Compared with the open approach, R-RPLND offers shorter hospitalization and less blood loss with comparably low complications and oncologic control.

SUMMARY

With ongoing adoption and optimization of R-RPLND, future studies will assess long-term oncologic outcomes and disseminate R-RPLND in the treatment of testicular cancer.

Comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for non-seminomatous germ cell tumor: a single-center retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of L-RPLND, R-RPLND and O-RPLND, and determine which one can be the mainstream option.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 47 patients undergoing primary RPLND by three different surgical techniques for stage I-II NSGCT between July 2011 and April 2022 at our center. Standard open and laparoscopic RPLND was performed with usual equipment, and robotic RPLND was operated with da Vinci Si system.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients underwent RPLND during 2011-2022, and 26 (55.3%) of them received L-RPLND, 14 (29.8%) were operated with robot, while 7 (14.9%) were performed O-RPLND. The median follow-up was 48.0 months, 48.0 months, and 60.0 months, respectively. The oncological outcomes were comparable among all groups. In L-RPLND group, there were 8 (30.8%) cases of low grade (Clavien I-II) complications, and 3 (11.5%) cases of high-grade (Clavien III-IV) complications. In R-RPLND group, one (7.1%) low-grade complication and four (28.6%) high-grade complications were observed. In O-RPLND group, there were 2 (28.5%) cases of low-grade complications and one case (14.2%) of high-grade one. The operation duration of L-RPLND was the shortest. In O-RPLND group, the number of positive lymph nodes were higher than other two groups. Patients undergoing open surgery had lower (p < 0.05) red blood cell count, hemoglobin level, and higher (p < 0.05) estimated blood loss, white blood cell count than those receiving either laparoscopic or robotic surgery.

CONCLUSION

All three surgical techniques are comparable in safety, oncological, andrological, and reproductive outcomes under the circumstance of not using primary chemotherapy. L-RPLND might be the most cost-effective option.

Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a systematic review of perioperative outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) and to compare the perioperative outcomes of R-RPLND with open RPLND (O-RPLND), as RPLND forms an integral part of the management of testis cancer and R-RPLND is a minimally invasive treatment option for this disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed^® , Scopus^® , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science™ databases were searched for studies reporting perioperative outcomes of primary and post-chemotherapy R-RPLND and studies comparing R-RPLND with O-RPLND.

RESULTS

The search yielded 42 articles describing R-RPLND, including five comparative studies. The systematic review included 4222 patients (single-arm studies, n = 459; comparative studies, n = 3763). Of 459 patients in the single-arm studies, 271 underwent primary R-RPLND and 188 underwent post-chemotherapy R-RPLND. For primary R-RPLND, the operative time ranged from 175 to 540 min and the major complication rate was 4.1%. For post-chemotherapy R-RPLND, the operative time ranged from 134 to 550 min and the major complication rate was 8.5%. The conversion rate to open surgery was 2.2% in primary R-RPLND and 9.0% in post-chemotherapy R-RPLND. In comparison with O-RPLND, R-RPLND was associated with a lower transfusion rate (14.5% vs 0.9%, P < 0.001) and a lower complication rate (18.5% vs 7.8%, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted RPLND has acceptable perioperative outcomes in both the primary and post-chemotherapy settings but a notable rate of conversion to open surgery in the post-chemotherapy setting. Compared with O-RPLND, R-RPLND is associated with a lower transfusion rate and fewer overall complications. Given the potential impact of selection bias, the optimal patient selection criteria for R-RPLND remain to be elucidated.

Red Out: Bleeding During Robotic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection and Strategies To Manage It

Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection is emerging as an attractive minimally invasive technique to remove residual and recurrent retroperitoneal masses in patients with germ cell malignancies. It has huge potential benefits for patients in terms of lower rates of blood loss, ileus, postoperative pain, and scarring, and faster return to full activity. Inadvertent injury to the great vessels, lumbar tributaries, and other vessels is not uncommon and requires a calm but strategic management response. A thorough knowledge of the standard anatomy, specific pathology, and anatomic variations will help robotic surgeons in managing intraoperative haemorrhage. We describe the anatomy of the retroperitoneal vessels, surgical case selection, and the technical and nontechnical skills essential for success in this complex and high-risk procedure.

Patient summary

Robot-assisted surgical removal of lymph nodes from the area behind the abdominal cavity is a complex operation that has minimal bleeding if all goes well. However, as it involves operating on the major abdominal blood vessels, there is a risk of life-threatening bleeding that the operating team must be able to rapidly control. Effective teamwork and a range of advanced technical skills are required to respond to any serious bleeding.