Investig Clin Urol.  2016 Jun;57(Suppl 1):S36-S43. 10.4111/icu.2016.57.S1.S36.

Open versus robotic cystectomy: Comparison of outcomes

• Davis RB
• Farber NJ
• Tabakin AL
• Kim IY
• Elsamra SE

• KMID: 2426515
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2016.57.S1.S36

Abstract

Open radical cystectomy (ORC) is the current gold standard treatment for muscle invasive bladder cancer. As surgeons become more proficient in minimally invasive and robotic surgical techniques, the number of patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasing. Although minimally invasive methods are on the rise, research that critically compares open surgery with robotic methods is limited. In this review, we surveyed and appraised the current literature comparing ORC and RARC with regards to perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes in order to distinguish the benefits and disadvantages of each method. Here we report that RARC is associated with several perioperative advantages over ORC such as lower estimated blood loss and transfusion rate, and possibly faster gastrointestinal recovery, lower narcotic requirement, and shorter length of stay. ORC is less costly and permits less time in the operating room. Recent data suggests that there is no difference between ORC and RARC when comparing urinary continence and postoperative quality of life. Moreover, ORC and RARC are both associated with similar rates of obtaining positive surgical margins, lymph node yield, and recurrence. However, RARC patients had an increased likelihood of having distant metastases to extrapelvic lymph nodes and the peritoneum. At this point, it is unclear if ORC or RARC has superior patient outcomes, and more research is needed to ascertain management-altering conclusions.

Keyword

Cystectomy; Outcome assessment; Robotic surgical procedures; Urinary bladder neoplasms; Urinary diversion

MeSH Terms

Blood Loss, Surgical
Cystectomy/adverse effects/economics/*methods
Health Care Costs/statistics & numerical data
Humans
Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data
Operative Time
Quality of Life
Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects/economics/*methods
Treatment Outcome
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms/economics/*surgery
Urination

Reference

1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer;2013. cited 2016 Mar 1. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/references.aspx.

2. Nguyen DP, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Wu X, O'Malley P, Inoyatov IM, Ayangbesan A, et al. Recurrence patterns after open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2015; 68:399–405.

3. Patel R, Szymaniak J, Radadia K, Faiena I, Lasser M. Controversies in robotics: open versus robotic radical cystectomy. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015; 13:421–427.

4. Leow JJ, Reese SW, Jiang W, Lipsitz SR, Bellmunt J, Trinh QD, et al. Propensity-matched comparison of morbidity and costs of open and robot-assisted radical cystectomies: a contemporary population-based analysis in the United States. Eur Urol. 2014; 66:569–576.

5. Lau CS, Blackwell RH, Quek ML. Radical cystectomy: open vs robotic approach. J Urol. 2015; 193:400–402.

6. Parekh DJ, Messer J, Fitzgerald J, Ercole B, Svatek R. Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol. 2013; 189:474–479.

7. Gill IS, Matin SF, Desai MM, Kaouk JH, Steinberg A, Mascha E, et al. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic versus open partial nephrectomy for renal tumors in 200 patients. J Urol. 2003; 170:64–68.

8. Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, Leung R, Rao S, El-Hakim A, et al. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology. 2008; 72:15–23.

9. Novara G, Catto JW, Wilson T, Annerstedt M, Chan K, Murphy DG, et al. Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2015; 67:376–401.

10. Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol. 2010; 57:196–201.

11. Khan MS, Gan C, Ahmed K, Ismail AF, Watkins J, Summers JA, et al. A single-centre early phase randomised controlled three-arm trial of open, robotic, and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (CORAL). Eur Urol. 2016; 69:613–621.

12. Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD, Silberstein J, Keren Paz GE, Donat SM, et al. Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2015; 67:1042–1050.

13. Knox ML, El-Galley R, Busby JE. Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: identification of patients who benefit from the robotic approach. J Endourol. 2013; 27:40–44.

14. Styn NR, Montgomery JS, Wood DP, Hafez KS, Lee CT, Tallman C, et al. Matched comparison of robotic-assisted and open radical cystectomy. Urology. 2012; 79:1303–1308.

15. Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM, Otto BJ, Portnoff A, Ehrlich JR, et al. A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2010; 57:274–281.

16. Kang SG, Ko YH, Jang HA, Kim J, Kim SH, Cheon J, et al. Initial experience of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with total intracorporeal urinary diversion: comparison with extracorporeal method. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012; 22:456–462.

17. Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Nguyen PL, Choueiri TK, et al. Comparative analysis of outcomes and costs following open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: results from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Eur Urol. 2012; 61:1239–1244.

18. Smith A, Kurpad R, Lal A, Nielsen M, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol. 2010; 183:505–509.

19. Steers WD. Voiding dysfunction in the orthotopic neobladder. World J Urol. 2000; 18:330–337.

20. Steven K, Poulsen AL. The orthotopic Kock ileal neobladder: functional results, urodynamic features, complications and survival in 166 men. J Urol. 2000; 164:288–295.

21. Yuh B, Wilson T, Bochner B, Chan K, Palou J, Stenzl A, et al. Systematic review and cumulative analysis of oncologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol. 2015; 67:402–422.

22. Tyritzis SI, Hosseini A, Collins J, Nyberg T, Jonsson MN, Laurin O, et al. Oncologic, functional, and complications outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy with totally intracorporeal neobladder diversion. Eur Urol. 2013; 64:734–741.

23. Canda AE, Atmaca AF, Altinova S, Akbulut Z, Balbay MD. Robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical cystectomy with bilateral extended pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and intracorporeal urinary diversion for bladder cancer: initial experience in 27 cases. BJU Int. 2012; 110:434–444.

24. Torrey RR, Chan KG, Yip W, Josephson DY, Lau CS, Ruel NH, et al. Functional outcomes and complications in patients with bladder cancer undergoing robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with extracorporeal Indiana pouch continent cutaneous urinary diversion. Urology. 2012; 79:1073–1078.

25. Satkunasivam R, Santomauro M, Chopra S, Plotner E, Cai J, Miranda G, et al. Robotic intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder: urodynamic outcomes, urinary function, and health-related quality of life. Eur Urol. 2016; 69:247–253.

26. Dotan ZA, Kavanagh K, Yossepowitch O, Kaag M, Olgac S, Donat M, et al. Positive surgical margins in soft tissue following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and cancer specific survival. J Urol. 2007; 178:2308–2312.

27. Raza SJ, Wilson T, Peabody JO, Wiklund P, Scherr DS, Al-Daghmin A, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol. 2015; 68:721–728.

28. Novara G, Svatek RS, Karakiewicz PI, Skinner E, Ficarra V, Fradet Y, et al. Soft tissue surgical margin status is a powerful predictor of outcomes after radical cystectomy: a multicenter study of more than 4,400 patients. J Urol. 2010; 183:2165–2170.

29. Skinner DG. Management of invasive bladder cancer: a meticulous pelvic node dissection can make a difference. J Urol. 1982; 128:34–36.

30. Wright JL, Lin DW, Porter MP. The association between extent of lymphadenectomy and survival among patients with lymph node metastases undergoing radical cystectomy. Cancer. 2008; 112:2401–2408.

31. Karl A, Carroll PR, Gschwend JE, Knuchel R, Montorsi F, Stief CG, et al. The impact of lymphadenectomy and lymph node metastasis on the outcomes of radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2009; 55:826–835.

32. Abaza R, Dangle PP, Gong MC, Bahnson RR, Pohar KS. Quality of lymphadenectomy is equivalent with robotic and open cystectomy using an extended template. J Urol. 2012; 187:1200–1204.