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

The robotic approach improves the outcomes of ERAS protocol after radical cystectomy: A prospective case-control analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally-invasive approach is one of the mainstays of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) introduction has reduced the surgical burden on patient's recovery. Accordingly, ERAS protocol benefits may be more striking in RARC patients. We evaluated the impact of surgical approach on perioperative outcomes, Fast Track (FT) recovery steps and Trifecta success rates in patients undergoing RC followed by FT protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We considered 147 patients who underwent RC, with open (Open radical cystectomy [ORC]; 47.6%) or robotic (RARC; 52.4%) approach at 2 tertiary centers. Urinary diversions were ileal conduit or orthotopic neobladder. All patients underwent FT protocol. We analyzed perioperative surgical and functional outcomes and Trifecta success rates (namely, defecation <5 days, in-hospital stay <10 days and no major complications). Uni and multivariable logistic regression explored the predictors for Trifecta success and the impact of surgical approach on recovery steps.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing RARC had higher FT adherence (95% vs. 61%) compared to ORCs (P < 0.01). Trifecta success rates were higher for RARC (79.2% vs 28.6%; P < 0.001). At multivariable analyses, RARC was an independent predictor for Trifecta success (OR 9.1), early mobilization (OR 5.9) and FT adherence (OR 3.33; all P < 0.001). Surgical technique was not associated with major complications or readmission within 90 days (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

RARC has more favorable perioperative outcomes compared to ORC, with higher Trifecta success rates. Accordingly, robotic approach should be ideally included in every center where ERAS protocol is applied to RC for maximizing patient's recovery.

Bayesian network analysis of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer

BACKGROUND

We have performed the direct and network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robot-assisted (RARC) versus laparoscopic (LRC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC) for bladder cancer (BCa).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was performed up until Dec 20, 2019. Outcome indexes include oncologic outcomes (the recurrence rate, mortality), pathologic outcomes (lymph node yield (LNY), positive lymph node (PLN), positive surgical margins (PSM)), perioperative outcomes (operating time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rate, the length of hospital stay (LOS) and the time to regular diet) and postoperative 90-day complications.

RESULTS

We have analyzed 6 RCTs, 23 prospective studies, and 25 retrospective studies (54 articles: 6382 patients). On one hand, the direct meta-analysis shows RARC is better than LRC or ORC. On the other hand, the clinical effects of the recurrence rate, Morbidity, PSM, LNY, PLN, and postoperative 90-day complications of RARC, LRC and ORC are all no statistical significance by network meta-analysis. Moreover, the probability rank shows that the comprehensive rank of RARC is better than LRC or ORC. The clinical effects of OP, EBL, LOS, blood transfusion rate and the time to regular diet are all statistical significance by network meta-analysis. There are ORC > LRC > RARC in the EBL ranking. Patients with RARC exhibited a decrease of LOS compared to those with LRC or ORC. Patients with RARC exhibited a decrease in blood transfusion rate and the time to regular diet compared to those with ORC. Patients with ORC exhibited an increase of OP compared to those with RARC or LRC. The heterogeneity tests of most studies are < 50%. Most studies have no publication bias and the quality of the selected studies is good.

CONCLUSION

The direct meta-analysis and network meta-analysis suggest that RARC is better than LRC or ORC according to comprehensive analysis. However, we need a large sample size and more high-quality studies to verify and improve in the further.

Perioperative outcomes and safety of robotic vs open cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12,640 cases

PURPOSE

Robotic radical cystectomy (RRC) has become a commonly utilised alternative to open radical cystectomy (ORC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RRC vs ORC focusing on perioperative outcomes and safety.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from January 2000 to April 2020 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement for study selection.

RESULTS

In total, 47 studies (5 randomised controlled trials, 42 non-randomised comparative studies) comprising 12,640 patients (6572 ORC, 6068 RRC) were included. There was no difference in baseline demographics between the groups apart from males were more likely to undergo ORC (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.85). Those with muscle-invasive disease were more likely to undergo RRC (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.34), and those with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer were more likely to undergo ORC (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89). RRC had a significantly longer operating time, less blood loss and lower transfusion rate. There was no difference in lymph node yield, rate of positive surgical margins, or Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II complications between the two groups. However, the RRC group were less likely to experience Clavien-Dindo Grade III-IV (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.30-1.89) and overall complications (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.26-1.68) than the ORC group. The mortality rate was higher in ORC although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.99-2.35).

CONCLUSION

RRC has significantly lower blood loss, transfusion rate and is associated with fewer high grade and overall complications compared to ORC.

Bladder Cancer at the time of COVID-19 Outbreak

The COVID-19 outbreak has led to the deferral of a great number of surgeries in an attempt to reduce transmission of infection, free up hospital beds, intensive care and anaesthetists, and limit aerosol-generating procedures. Guidelines and suggestions have been provided to categorize Urological diseases into risk groups and recommendations are available on procedures that can be or cannot be deferred. We aim to summarise updates on diagnosis, treatment and follow up of bladder cancer during the COVID-19 outbreaks.