Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 655–661 | Cite as

Robot-assisted post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in germ cell tumor: is the single-docking with lateral approach relevant?

  • C. Overs
  • J. B. Beauval
  • L. Mourey
  • P. Rischmann
  • M. Soulié
  • M. Roumiguié
  • Nicolas Doumerc
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Surgical treatment of post-chemotherapy residual mass of germ cell tumor (GCT) may be performed in various techniques. We assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of single-docking with lateral approach robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) in residual mass of GCT in our center.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review of patients undergoing R-RPLND for residual mass of CGT was performed between January 2014 and April 2017. Patients with residual mass < 3 cm for seminoma or < 1 cm for non-seminoma were eligible. All surgeries were performed with single-docking RPNLD technique in lateral decubitus. We assessed preoperative characteristics (age, testicular pathology, template, chemotherapy regimen, lesion size, and clinical stage), peroperative (operative time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative complication, node count, pathology, and number of positive node), and postoperative outcomes (postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, recurrence-free survival at 2 year, and ejaculation dysfunction).

Results

Eleven patients underwent R-RPLND with a median size of the residual mass of 20 mm. Median operative time was 153 min with 120 ml of estimated blood loss, without intraoperative complication. Median nodes count was 7 [1; 24]. Two patients had post-chemotherapy necrotic nodes and one no tumorous node. One patient had postoperative Clavien I complication (chyloperitoneum). We report 72.7% of antegrade ejaculation at 1 month from the surgery. Median clinical recurrence-free survival was 100% after 2 years from the surgery (n = 6).

Conclusion

Lateral approach with single-docking R-RPLND for residual mass of GCT is feasible and safe, with satisfying functional and oncologic outcomes.

Keywords

Robotic surgery Testicular cancer Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection Single-docking Post-chemotherapy residual mass 

Notes

Author contributions

CO: data collection and management, data analysis, and manuscript writing. JBB: project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing. LM: project development. PR: project development. MS: project development. MR: project development, data management, and data analysis. ND: project development, data collection or management, and data analysis

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Nicolas Doumerc is a consultant for intuitive surgical.

Research involving human participants

Yes.

Informed consent

Not concerned (retrospective study).

References

  1. 1.
    Miki T et al (2014) Clinical characteristics and oncological outcomes of testicular cancer patients registered in 2005 and 2008: the first large-scale study from the Cancer Registration Committee of the Japanese Urological Association. Int J Urol 21:S1–S6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chéry L, Dash A (2015) The role of postchemotherapy surgery in germ cell tumors. Urol Clin North Am 42:331–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Treglia G et al (2014) Diagnostic performance of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the postchemotherapy management of patients with seminoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2014:852681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oechsle K et al (2008) [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in nonseminomatous germ cell tumors after chemotherapy: the German multicenter positron emission tomography study group. J Clin Oncol 26:5930–5935CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faria EF et al (2017) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection as a safe procedure for postchemotherapy residual mass in testicular cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A.  https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0381 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jain S, Gautam G (2015) Robotics in urologic oncology. J Minim Access Surg 11:40–44CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pearce SM et al (2017) Safety and early oncologic effectiveness of primary robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. Eur Urol 71:476–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stepanian S, Patel M, Porter J (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: evolution of the technique. Eur Urol 70:661–667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams SB, Lau CS, Josephson DY (2011) Initial series of robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell testicular cancer. Eur Urol 60:1299–1302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cost NG et al (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in an adolescent population. J Endourol 26:635–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bora GS et al (2017) Post chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in germ cell tumor: robotic way. J Robot Surg 11:279–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh A, Chatterjee S, Bansal P, Bansal A, Rawal S (2017) Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: feasibility and outcome in postchemotherapy residual mass in testicular cancer. Indian J Urol 33:304–309CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Albers P, Foster RS, Voges GE, Donohue JP (2010) Nerve sparing retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RLA). Aktuelle Urol 41:201–210 (212; quiz 211) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hillelsohn JH, Duty BD, Okhunov Z, Kavoussi LR (2012) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Arab J Urol 10:66–73CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sim HG, Lange PH, Lin DW (2007) Role of post-chemotherapy surgery in germ cell tumors. Urol Clin North Am 34:199–217 (abstract ix) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nicolai N et al (2017) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in clinical stage i nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis: safety and efficacy analyses at a high volume center. J Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.09.088 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Janetschek G, Peschel R, Hobisch A, Bartsch G (2001) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J. Endourol 15:449–453 (discussion 453–455) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams SB et al (2010) Morbidity of open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: contemporary perioperative data. BJU Int 105:918–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Subramanian VS, Nguyen CT, Stephenson AJ, Klein EA (2010) Complications of open primary and post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Urol Oncol 28:504–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gardner MW et al (2011) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for low-stage cancer: a Washington University update. J Endourol 25:1753–1757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guzzo TJ, Gonzalgo ML, Allaf ME (2010) Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection with therapeutic intent in men with clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. J Endourol 24:1759–1763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davol P, Sumfest J, Rukstalis D (2006) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Urology 67:199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheney SM, Andrews PE, Leibovich BC, Castle EP (2015) Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: technique and initial case series of 18 patients. BJU Int 115:114–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stout TE, Soni SD, Goh AC (2016) Post-chemotherapy robotic bilateral retroperitoneal lymph node dissection using a novel single-dock technique. J Robot Surg 10:353–356CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kamel MH, Littlejohn N, Cox M, Eltahawy EA, Davis R (2016) Post-chemotherapy robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: institutional experience. J Endourol 30:510–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Porter JR (2017) A laparoscopic approach is best for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: yes. J Urol 197:1384–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baniel J, Foster RS, Rowland RG, Bihrle R, Donohue JP (1995) Complications of post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. J Urol 153:976–980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee SH, Kim DS, Chang S-G, Jeon SH (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for stage IIIb mixed germ cell testicular cancer after chemotherapy. Korean J Urol 56:540–544CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dogra PN et al (2013) Robot assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular tumor. Urol Ann 5:223–226CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Overs
    • 1
  • J. B. Beauval
    • 2
  • L. Mourey
    • 2
    • 3
  • P. Rischmann
    • 2
  • M. Soulié
    • 2
  • M. Roumiguié
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nicolas Doumerc
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Andrology and Renal TransplantationCHU GrenobleLa TroncheFrance
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Andrology and Renal Transplantation, CHU RangueilPaul-Sabatier UniversityToulouse CedexFrance
  3. 3.Oncology DepartmentCancer Institute of Toulouse (IUCT-O)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations