A comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective To compare the safety and perioperative outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) vs laparoscopic RPLND (L-RPLND). Patients and Methods Our Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective testicular cancer registry was queried for patients who underwent a primary unilateral R-RPLND or L-RPLND by a single surgeon for a stage I testicular non-seminomatous germ cell tumour. Groups were compared for differences in baseline and outcome variables. Results Between July 2006 and July 2014, 16 R-RPLND and 21 L-RPLND cases were performed by a single surgeon. Intra- and perioperative outcomes including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node yield, complicate rate, and ejaculatory status were similar between groups (all P > 0.1). Conclusions As an early checkpoint, R-RPLND appears comparable to L-RPLND in terms of safety and perioperative outcomes. It remains unclear if R-RPLND offers any tangible benefits over standard laparoscopy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)920-923
Number of pages4
JournalBJU International
Volume116
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

Testicular Neoplasms
Robotics
Lymph Node Excision
Safety
Research Ethics Committees
Operative Time
Laparoscopy
Registries
Lymph Nodes
Surgeons

Keywords

  • retroperitoneal lymph node dissection
  • robotic surgery
  • RPLND
  • testicular cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

A comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. / Harris, Kelly T.; Gorin, Michael; Ball, Mark W.; Pierorazio, Phillip Martin; Allaf, Mohamad E.

In: BJU International, Vol. 116, No. 6, 01.12.2015, p. 920-923.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{30e95b32b5544a18a2f5e52cc2086605,
title = "A comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer",
abstract = "Objective To compare the safety and perioperative outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) vs laparoscopic RPLND (L-RPLND). Patients and Methods Our Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective testicular cancer registry was queried for patients who underwent a primary unilateral R-RPLND or L-RPLND by a single surgeon for a stage I testicular non-seminomatous germ cell tumour. Groups were compared for differences in baseline and outcome variables. Results Between July 2006 and July 2014, 16 R-RPLND and 21 L-RPLND cases were performed by a single surgeon. Intra- and perioperative outcomes including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node yield, complicate rate, and ejaculatory status were similar between groups (all P > 0.1). Conclusions As an early checkpoint, R-RPLND appears comparable to L-RPLND in terms of safety and perioperative outcomes. It remains unclear if R-RPLND offers any tangible benefits over standard laparoscopy.",
keywords = "retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, robotic surgery, RPLND, testicular cancer",
author = "Harris, {Kelly T.} and Michael Gorin and Ball, {Mark W.} and Pierorazio, {Phillip Martin} and Allaf, {Mohamad E}",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/bju.13121",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "116",
pages = "920--923",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparative analysis of robotic vs laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer

AU - Harris, Kelly T.

AU - Gorin, Michael

AU - Ball, Mark W.

AU - Pierorazio, Phillip Martin

AU - Allaf, Mohamad E

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - Objective To compare the safety and perioperative outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) vs laparoscopic RPLND (L-RPLND). Patients and Methods Our Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective testicular cancer registry was queried for patients who underwent a primary unilateral R-RPLND or L-RPLND by a single surgeon for a stage I testicular non-seminomatous germ cell tumour. Groups were compared for differences in baseline and outcome variables. Results Between July 2006 and July 2014, 16 R-RPLND and 21 L-RPLND cases were performed by a single surgeon. Intra- and perioperative outcomes including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node yield, complicate rate, and ejaculatory status were similar between groups (all P > 0.1). Conclusions As an early checkpoint, R-RPLND appears comparable to L-RPLND in terms of safety and perioperative outcomes. It remains unclear if R-RPLND offers any tangible benefits over standard laparoscopy.

AB - Objective To compare the safety and perioperative outcomes of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) vs laparoscopic RPLND (L-RPLND). Patients and Methods Our Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective testicular cancer registry was queried for patients who underwent a primary unilateral R-RPLND or L-RPLND by a single surgeon for a stage I testicular non-seminomatous germ cell tumour. Groups were compared for differences in baseline and outcome variables. Results Between July 2006 and July 2014, 16 R-RPLND and 21 L-RPLND cases were performed by a single surgeon. Intra- and perioperative outcomes including operative time, estimated blood loss, lymph node yield, complicate rate, and ejaculatory status were similar between groups (all P > 0.1). Conclusions As an early checkpoint, R-RPLND appears comparable to L-RPLND in terms of safety and perioperative outcomes. It remains unclear if R-RPLND offers any tangible benefits over standard laparoscopy.

KW - retroperitoneal lymph node dissection

KW - robotic surgery

KW - RPLND

KW - testicular cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946499331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946499331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/bju.13121

DO - 10.1111/bju.13121

M3 - Article

VL - 116

SP - 920

EP - 923

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

IS - 6

ER -