Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Aug;71(4):301-308.
doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03435-0. Epub 2019 May 7.

Current role of robotic bladder cancer surgery

Affiliations
Free article
Review

Current role of robotic bladder cancer surgery

Stavros I Tyritzis et al. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019 Aug.
Free article

Abstract

Introduction: Radical cystectomy (RC) is one of the most complex and morbid surgical procedures in urology, that is not devoid of postoperative complications. Minimally invasive surgery, and especially robot-assisted RC (RARC) has emerged as an alternative to open RC (ORC) in an attempt to minimize surgical morbidity and facilitate the surgical approach. The aim of this paper was to present the current knowledge on the oncological efficacy and complication outcomes of RARC.

Evidence acquisition: A non-systematic review on all relevant studies with the keywords "Radical cystectomy," "Open," "Robot-assisted," "Complications," "Recurrence," "Survival," "Neobladder," "Potency," "Continence" and "Intracorporeal" was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, American Urological Association (AUA), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines.

Evidence synthesis: RARC shows similar lymph node yields and positive surgical margin rates as well as perioperative complication outcomes compared with ORC. RARC exhibits significantly less blood loss and less intra- and postoperative blood transfusion. Moreover, survival and recurrence rates are not related to the surgical approach. Finally, RARC seems to be more expensive and has a longer operating time compared to the open technique.

Conclusions: As current evidence shows, RARC seems as a technically feasible and safe procedure, providing equivalent perioperative and oncological results compared to ORC. More prospective, randomized-controlled trials are necessary to draw definitive conclusions on all comparative aspects.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources