Feasibility and Oncological Safety of Robotic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection in Patients with Testicular Cancer—Single-Center Experience

摘要

Background/Purpose: Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) plays a crucial role in the surgical management of testicular cancer. However, RPLND is associated with a high risk of morbidity. Currently, open RPLND (O-RPLND) is considered the gold standard for surgical treatment. The use of minimally invasive techniques has increased significantly over the last few years. This study aimed to compare the safety and oncological outcomes of open (O-RPLND) and robotic (R-RPLND) retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed all the patients who underwent RPLND at our testicular cancer center. Standard O-RPLND was performed with the usual equipment, and R-RPLND was performed with the Da Vinci X/Xi surgical system. The pre- and perioperative parameters and the postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo classification), anejaculation, and the relapse rate were recorded. The association between the clinicopathological variables and the complications and relapse was assessed using regression analyses. Results: Sixty-five patients underwent RPLND during 2017–2024 due to testicular cancer (TC), with thirty-one (47.7%) receiving R-RPLND, including seventeen patients post-chemotherapy (55%). Meanwhile, 34 (52.3%) underwent O-RPLND, comprising 31 patients post-chemotherapy (91%). R-RPLND demonstrated excellent results compared to O-RPLND in terms of the operative time (OT) (p < 0.00001). The R-RPLND group had two (6.5%) high-grade (Clavien–Dindo III–V) complications, while four (11.8%) high-grade complications were noted in the O-RPLND group. R-RPLND was linked to a shorter OT (p < 0.00001). The hospital stay for R-RPLND was, on average, 2.7 days shorter. In logistic regression analysis, R-RPLND was non-inferior to O-RPLND for overall complications (p = 0.6) and low-grade Clavien–Dindo (I-II) (p = 0.2) and high-grade Clavien–Dindo (≥III) complications (p = 0.7). The median follow-up was 13 months for R-RPLND and 38 months for O-RPLND. Two relapses were observed in the R-RPLND group (6.5%), and two in the O-RPLND group (5.9%). One patient who underwent R-RPLND developed field-edge recurrence. No significant differences in the relapse and anejaculation rates were found between R-RPLND and O-RPLND (p = 0.9 and p = 0.8, respectively). Conclusions: In conclusion, R-RPLND is a feasible procedure with a low complication rate and an acceptable oncological outcome. It has proven to be significantly shorter to O-RPLND in relation to the lengths of HS and OT. However, R-RPLND is a demanding procedure with a considerable learning curve.