First comparison of retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal robot-assisted nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff : a single center study

dc.contributor.authorSparwassser, P.
dc.contributor.authorFrey, Lisa
dc.contributor.authorFischer, Nikita D.
dc.contributor.authorThomas, A.
dc.contributor.authorDotzauer, Robert
dc.contributor.authorSurcel, C.
dc.contributor.authorBrandt, Maximilian Peter
dc.contributor.authorMager, Rene
dc.contributor.authorHöfner, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorHaferkamp, Axel
dc.contributor.authorTsaur, Igor
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-01T11:13:52Z
dc.date.available2024-07-01T11:13:52Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractIntroduction. After recent presentation of the first complete robot-assisted retroperitoneal nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff (RRNU) for patients with upper tract urothelial cancer (UTUC), we aimed to compare this new surgical technique with robot-assisted transperitoneal nephroureter ectomy (TRNU) representing the current standard of care. Methods. Robot-assisted nephroureterectomies (NUs) were retrospectively analyzed and compared based on two groups: transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal approach. Baseline data were collected for patient demographics, tumor characteristics, intra- (EAUiaiC) and postoperative (Clavien-Dindo) complications, and perioperative variables. Tumor characteristics included grade of malignancy, clinical stage, and surgical margin status. Short-term follow-up data including 30-day readmission rates were collected. Statistical analyses were performed assuming a significant p-value of < 0.05. Results. The analysis includes perioperative patient data after proven UTUC of 24 TRNU versus 12 RRNU (mean age: 70 versus 71 years; BMI: 25.9 versus 26.1 kg/m 2 ; CCI score ≥ 4: 83% versus 75%; ASA score ≥ 3: 37% vs 33%). Intraoperative (16.4% vs 0%, p = 0.35) and postoperative (25% vs 12.5%, p = 0.64) complications demonstrated no significant discrepancy. Notably, RRNU demonstrated significantly shorter surgery time (p < 0.05) and length of stay (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in histopathological tumor characteristics, whereas significantly more lymph nodes were removed through RRNU (11.0±3.3 vs. 6.4±5.1, p < 0.05). Finally, no statistical difference was shown in short-term follow-up. Conclusion. We report the first head-to-head comparison between RRNU and TRNU. RRNU proves to be a safe and feasible approach which appears to be non-inferior to TRNU. RRNU expands the spectrum of minimally invasive treatment options, particularly for patients with major previous abdominal surgery.en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttp://doi.org/10.25358/openscience-10487
dc.identifier.urihttps://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/handle/20.500.12030/10505
dc.language.isoengde
dc.rightsCC-BY-4.0*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizinde_DE
dc.subject.ddc610 Medical sciencesen_GB
dc.titleFirst comparison of retroperitoneal versus transperitoneal robot-assisted nephroureterectomy with bladder cuff : a single center studyen_GB
dc.typeZeitschriftenaufsatzde
jgu.journal.titleAnnals of surgical oncologyde
jgu.journal.volume30de
jgu.organisation.departmentFB 04 Medizinde
jgu.organisation.nameJohannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
jgu.organisation.number2700
jgu.organisation.placeMainz
jgu.organisation.rorhttps://ror.org/023b0x485
jgu.pages.end4539de
jgu.pages.start4531de
jgu.publisher.doi10.1245/s10434-023-13363-0de
jgu.publisher.issn1534-4681de
jgu.publisher.nameSpringerde
jgu.publisher.placeBerlin [u.a.]de
jgu.publisher.year2023
jgu.rights.accessrightsopenAccess
jgu.subject.ddccode610de
jgu.type.contenttypeScientific articlede
jgu.type.dinitypeArticleen_GB
jgu.type.resourceTextde
jgu.type.versionPublished versionde

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
first_comparison_of_retroperi-20240627141840787.pdf
Size:
1.08 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
3.57 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:

Collections