| Abstract: |
Context Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly used for radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary reconstruction. Sufficient data have accumulated to allow evidence-based consensus on key issues such as perioperative management, comparative effectiveness on surgical complications, and oncologic short- to midterm outcomes. Objective A 2-d conference of experts on RC and urinary reconstruction was organized in Pasadena, California, and the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, California, to systematically review existing peer-reviewed literature on robot-assisted RC (RARC), extended lymphadenectomy, and urinary reconstruction. No commercial support was obtained for the conference. Evidence acquisition A systematic review of the literature was performed in agreement with the PRISMA statement. Evidence synthesis Systematic literature reviews and individual presentations were discussed, and consensus on all key issues was obtained. Most operative, intermediate-term oncologic, functional, and complication outcomes are similar between open RC (ORC) and RARC. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC generally requires longer operative time than ORC, particularly with intracorporeal reconstruction. Robotic assistance provides ergonomic value for surgeons. Surgeon experience and institutional volume strongly predict favorable outcomes for either open or robotic techniques. Conclusions RARC appears to be similar to ORC in terms of operative, pathologic, intermediate-term oncologic, complication, and most functional outcomes. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC can be more expensive than ORC, although high procedural volume may attenuate this difference. Patient summary Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is an alternative to open surgery for patients with bladder cancer who require removal of their bladder and reconstruction of their urinary tract. RARC appears to be similar to open surgery for most important outcomes such as the rate of complications and intermediate-term cancer-specific survival. Although RARC has some ergonomic advantages for surgeons and may result in less blood loss during surgery, it is more time consuming and may be more expensive than open surgery. |
