» Articles » PMID: 33446375

Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy Versus Open Radical Cystectomy in Bladder Cancer Patients: A Multicentre Comparative Effectiveness Study

Overview
Journal Eur Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2021 Jan 15
PMID 33446375
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) and urinary diversion in patients with bladder cancer is known for its high risk of complications. Although open radical cystectomy (ORC) is regarded as the standard treatment, robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasingly used in practice, despite the fact that high-quality evidence comparing the effectiveness of both techniques is lacking.

Objective: To study the effectiveness of RARC compared with that of ORC, in terms of 90 d complications (Clavien-Dindo), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, And Participants: A prospective comparative effectiveness study was conducted in 19 Dutch centres, expert in either ORC or RARC. Follow-up visits were scheduled at 30, 90, and 365 d.

Intervention: Standard ORC or RARC with PLND, using a standardised perioperative protocol.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: The primary outcome was any-grade complications after 90 d. Secondary outcomes included HRQOL, complications (minor, major, 30 d, and 365 d), and clinical outcomes. Differences were calculated as risk differences (RDs) between the groups with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for potential baseline differences by means of propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting.

Results And Limitations: Between March 2016 and November 2018, 348 patients were included (n = 168 for ORC, n = 180 for RARC). At 90 d, any-grade complication rates were 63% for ORC and 56% for RARC (RD -6.4%, 95% CI -17 to 4.5). Major complication rates were 15% for ORC and 16% for RARC (RD 0.9%, 95% CI -7.0 to 8.8). Total minor complication rates were 57% for ORC and 49% for RARC (RD -7.6%, 95% CI -19 to 3.6). Analyses showed no statistically significant differences in HRQOL between ORC and RARC. Some differences were found in the secondary outcomes in favour of either RARC or ORC. The major drawback inherent to the design comprises residual confounding.

Conclusions: This multicentre comparative effectiveness study showed no statistically significant differences between ORC and RARC in terms of complications and HRQOL.

Patient Summary: This multicentre study did not show differences in overall complication rates, health-related quality of life, mortality, and clinical and oncological outcomes between open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy in bladder cancer patients.

Citing Articles

Utilizing vaginal natural orifice to facilitate bowel manipulation during totally intracorporeal ileal conduit construction: a retrospective cohort study.

Jia K, Huang S, Wang Z, Lin Y, Bai Y, Shen C Ann Med. 2025; 57(1):2453827.

PMID: 39826911 PMC: 11748861. DOI: 10.1080/07853890.2025.2453827.


Open versus Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy for the Treatment of pT4a Bladder Cancer: Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes.

Perri D, Rocco B, Sighinolfi M, Bove P, Pastore A, Volpe A Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(7).

PMID: 38611006 PMC: 11011112. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16071329.


Perioperative outcomes and continence following robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with mainz pouch II urinary diversion in patients with bladder cancer.

Jing S, Yang E, Luo Z, Zhang Y, Ding H, Yang L BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):127.

PMID: 38267934 PMC: 10809619. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-11874-x.


Robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: evaluation of complications, survival, and opioid prescribing patterns.

Yang R, Rac G, Felice M, Pahouja G, Ko C, Okabe Y J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):10.

PMID: 38214872 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01749-x.


Extraperitoneal Versus Intraperitoneal Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

You C, Li Q, Yang Y, Qing L, Liu S, Wang Y Ann Surg Oncol. 2023; 30(9):5932-5941.

PMID: 37344747 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13744-5.