MP23-09 ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RETROPERITONEAL LYMPH NODE DISSECTION FOR NON-SEMINOMATOUS TESTICULAR CANCER IN THE PRIMARY SETTING: A RETROSPECTIVE MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySurgical Technology & Simulation: Instrumentation & Technology I1 Apr 2016MP23-09 ROBOT-ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RETROPERITONEAL LYMPH NODE DISSECTION FOR NON-SEMINOMATOUS TESTICULAR CANCER IN THE PRIMARY SETTING: A RETROSPECTIVE MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS Michael Marshall, Haidar Abdul-Muhsin, Sean Stroup, Ithaar Derweesh, Michael Woods, James Porter, Erik Castle, and James L'Esperance Michael MarshallMichael Marshall More articles by this author , Haidar Abdul-MuhsinHaidar Abdul-Muhsin More articles by this author , Sean StroupSean Stroup More articles by this author , Ithaar DerweeshIthaar Derweesh More articles by this author , Michael WoodsMichael Woods More articles by this author , James PorterJames Porter More articles by this author , Erik CastleErik Castle More articles by this author , and James L'EsperanceJames L'Esperance More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.731AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) for testicular cancer is an advanced surgical technique that has been slow to gain acceptance due to technical challenges and concerns about patient safety and oncologic efficacy. Herein, we report a multi-institutional analysis of RA-RPLND compared to the traditional open midline approach (O-RPLND) in the primary setting. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, retrospective review of 117 men with non-seminomatous testicular cancer who underwent either RA-RPLND or O-RPLND in the primary setting. The robotic technique performed has been described previously. A prospective, nerve-sparing approach was used for a majority of cases. Pertinent comparisons were made between each approach. RESULTS From March 1999 to June 2015, 69 RA-RPLND and 48 O-RPLND were conducted in the primary setting. Patient demographics and operative times were similar between groups. RA-RPLND showed statistically better outcomes in regard to intraoperative blood loss, post-operative pain, and duration of post-operative hospitalization. A significant number of high-grade complications were noted in the O-RPLND group whereas none were noted in the RA-RPLND group. Oncologic efficacy was suggested by similarities in total number of lymph nodes obtained, presence of occult stage II disease, and overall recurrence rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS RA-RPLND for non-seminomatous testicular cancer in the primary setting is safer, less morbid, and better tolerated than the traditional open approach. Our data suggests oncologic equivalency between the two approaches substantiating the continued use of RA-RPLND to treat this select group of patients. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e264-e265 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Michael Marshall More articles by this author Haidar Abdul-Muhsin More articles by this author Sean Stroup More articles by this author Ithaar Derweesh More articles by this author Michael Woods More articles by this author James Porter More articles by this author Erik Castle More articles by this author James L'Esperance More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...