Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume 28, Issue 5 , Pages 480-486, September 2010

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: An expert panel review of the current status and future direction

  • John W. Davis, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1-713-792-3250; fax: +1-713-794-4824
  • ,
  • Erik P. Castle, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, AZ 85259, USA
  • ,
  • Raj S. Pruthi, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
  • ,
  • David K. Ornstein, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • 21st Century Oncology, LLC, Naples, FL 34102, USA
  • ,
  • Khurshid A. Guru, M.D.

      Affiliations

    • Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA

Received 30 May 2009; received in revised form 19 November 2009; accepted 20 November 2009. published online 08 March 2010.

Abstract 

Objective

At the 9th Annual Meeting of the Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO), an expert panel discussed the current status of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC).

Materials and methods

The presentations were derived from: (1) review of published literature, unpublished addendums, and SUO abstracts, (2) initial abstract data of pooled results of 528 patients from the International Robot-Assisted Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC), and (3) an internet-based survey of the SUO membership (n = 54) on training and practice patterns related to RARC.

Results

Using pathologic assessment of surgical margins as a surrogate for cancer control, the results are favorable with organ confined disease, with select expert series showing no positive margins and the IRCC group reporting 4%. In non-organ-confined disease, select expert series also show no positive margins, while for the IRCC group it was 15%. The median lymph node yield in all series is 12–19 with 5%–33% positive. The S-model robot is preferred for an extended node dissection to the aortic bifurcation. In experienced hands, estimated blood loss is <500 cc, and hospital discharge by postoperative d 4–5. Complications appear similar to open and decrease with experience. In one study comparing RARC to open, pain scales were similar but morphine use was consistently lower for RARC. The technique is most often applied to the bladder and lymph nodes only with a mini-laparotomy for the diversion; technical considerations for female patients were described. The membership surveys showed that 37% of respondents have attempted RARC, but < 20% received robot console training during fellowship. The greatest area of concern was the adequacy of the lymph node dissection in the higher regions—common iliac to peri-caval/aortic.

Conclusions

Initial reports of RARC demonstrate feasibility of technique, early oncologic outcomes, and learning curve experiences. Surgeons learning RARC should select patients without clinical evidence of locally advanced disease, and consider a second look open node dissection. Experienced surgeons have demonstrated the possibility of reduced blood loss, opiate requirement, and hospital stay. Moving forward, an international consortium has been organized to address the unmet needs of prospective comparisons with long-term oncologic outcomes, standardized complication reporting, and quality of life.

Keywords: Robot-assisted surgery, Radical cystectomy, Bladder cancer, Transitional cell carcinoma, Review article

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1078-1439(09)00367-6

doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2009.11.014

Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations
Volume 28, Issue 5 , Pages 480-486, September 2010