International Journal of Clinical Oncology

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 756–763 | Cite as

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy is a promising alternative to open surgery in the Japanese population with a high rate of octogenarians

  • Hideto Iwamoto
  • Tetsuya Yumioka
  • Noriya Yamaguchi
  • Toshihiko Masago
  • Shuichi Morizane
  • Masashi Honda
  • Takehiro Sejima
  • Atsushi Takenaka
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 225 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Japanese patients who undergo radical cystectomy have a unique feature, i.e., the ratio of octogenarians is higher than in Western patients because of the aging Japanese population. The purpose of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes, complications, and oncologic outcomes between robot-assisted radical cystectomy and open radical cystectomy.

Methods

From 2010−2015, 20 (of which 8 were octogenarians) and 40 (of which 11 were octogenarians) patients underwent robot-assisted radical cystectomy and open radical cystectomy, respectively.

Results

There was no significant difference in terms of patient demographics between the two surgical cohorts, regardless of patient age. In the octogenarian patient cohort, the rates of previous abdominal surgery and the median age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index were higher. The median estimated blood loss, transfusion rate and the days to resumption of a regular diet were significantly lower in the robot-assisted radical cystectomy cohort, regardless of patient age. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy significantly decreased grade II or higher complications, but there were no significant differences in terms of decreasing grade III or higher complications, regardless of patient age. Positive surgical margin and the mean number of lymph nodes removed were similar between the two surgical cohorts, regardless of patient age.

Conclusion

Although robot-assisted radical cystectomy has a short history in Japan, the outcomes were generally comparable to those of previous studies. In a country that is aging rapidly like Japan, robot-assisted radical cystectomy could be a valid option for the management of muscle-invasive and high-risk superficial bladder cancer.

Keywords

Bladder cancer Robot-assisted radical cystectomy Perioperative outcomes Complications Oncologic outcomes 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Huang GJ, Stein JP (2007) Open radical cystectomy with lymphadenectomy remains the treatment of choice for invasive bladder cancer. Curr Opin Urol 17:369–375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A et al (2003) Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int 92:232–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leow JJ, Reese SW, Jiang W et al (2014) 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 66:569–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yumioka T, Iwamoto H, Masago T et al (2015) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in an initial Japanese series: the impact of prior abdominal surgery on surgical outcomes. Int J Urol 22:278–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang GJ, Barocas DA, Raman JD (2008) Scherr DS. Robotic vs open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative outcomes and pathological measures of early oncological efficacy. BJU Int 101:89–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pruthi RS, Wallen EM (2007) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystoprostatectomy: operative and pathological outcomes. J Urol 178:814–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM et al (2010) A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol 57:274–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R et al (2010) Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol 5:196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richards KA, Hemal AK, Kader AK et al (2010) Robot assisted laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy at the time of radical cystectomy rivals that of open surgery: single institution report. Urology 76:1400–1404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sung HH, Ahn JS, Seo SI et al (2012) A comparison of early complications between open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy. J Endourol 26:670–675CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gondo T, Yoshioka K, Nakagami Y et al (2012) Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative and pathologic outcomes in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 42:625–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parekh DJ, Messer J, Fitzgerald J et al (2013) Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol 189:474–479CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li K, Lin T, Fan X et al (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting early outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy. Cancer Treat Rev 39:551–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Novara G, Catto JW, Wilson T et al (2015) Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 67:376–401CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yuh B, Wilson T, Bochner B et al (2015) Systematic review and cumulative analysis of oncologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 67:402–422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goh AC, Gill IS, Lee DJ et al (2012) Robotic intracorporeal orthotopic ileal neobladder: replicating open surgical principles. Eur Urol 62:891–901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahmed K, Khan SA, Hayn MH et al (2014) Analysis of intracorporeal compared with extracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 65:340–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Snow-Lisy DC, Campbell SC, Gill IS et al (2014) Robotic and laparoscopic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: long-term oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 65:193–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raza SJ, Al-Daghmin A, Zhuo S et al (2014) Oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical cystectomy with minimum 5-year follow-up: the Roswell Park cancer institute experience. Eur Urol 66:920–928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Desai MM, Gill IS, de Castro Abreu AL et al (2014) Robotic intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder during radical cystectomy in 132 patients. J Urol 192:1734–1740CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nguyen DP, Al Awamlh BAH, Wu X et al (2015) Recurrence patterns after open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol 68:399–405CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Phillips EA, Uberoi V, Tuerk IA et al (2014) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy in octogenarians. J Endourol 28:219–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nguyen DP, Awamlh BA, Charles Osterberg E et al (2015) Postoperative complications and short-term oncological outcomes of patients aged ≥80 years undergoing robot-assisted radical cystectomy. World J Urol 33:1315–1321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Society of Clinical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hideto Iwamoto
    • 1
  • Tetsuya Yumioka
    • 1
  • Noriya Yamaguchi
    • 1
  • Toshihiko Masago
    • 1
  • Shuichi Morizane
    • 1
  • Masashi Honda
    • 1
  • Takehiro Sejima
    • 1
  • Atsushi Takenaka
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urology, Department of SurgeryTottori University Faculty of MedicineYonagoJapan

Personalised recommendations