Introduction The Italian Radical Cystectomy Registry (Registro Italiano Cistectomie – RIC) aimed to analyse outcomes of a multicenter series of patients treated with radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. Material and methods An observational, prospective, multicenter, cohort study was performed to collect data from RC and urinary diversion via open (ORC), laparoscopic (LRC), or robotic-assisted (RARC) tech-niques performed in 28 Italian Urological Departments. The enrolment was planned from January 2017 to June 2020 (goal: 1000 patients), with a total of 1425 patients included. Chi-square and t-tests were used for categorical and continuous variables. All tests were 2-sided, with a significance level set at p <0.05. Results Overall median operative-time was longer in RARCs (390 minutes, IQR 335–465) than ORCs (250, 217–309) and LRCs (292, 228–350) (p <0.001). Lymph node dissection (LND) was performed more frequently in RARCs (97.1%) and LRCs (93.5%) than ORCs (85.6%) (p <0.001), with extended-LND performed 2-fold more frequently in RARCs (61.6%) (p <0.001). The neobladder rate was significantly higher (more than one-half) in RARCs. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) rate was lower in RARCs (250 ml, 165–400) than LRCs (330, 200–600) and ORCs (400, 250–600) (p <0.001), with intraoperative blood trans-fusion rates of 11.4%, 21.7% and 35.6%, respectively (p <0.001). The conversion to open rate was slightly higher in RARCs (6.8%) than LRCs (4.3%). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1.3% of cases without statistically significant differences among the approaches. Conclusions Data from the RIC confirmed the need to collect as much data as possible in a multicenter manner. RARCs proves to be feasible with perioperative complication rates that do not differ from the other approaches.

Robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open radical cystectomy: surgical data of 1400 patients from The Italian Radical Cystectomy Registry on intraoperative outcomes

Cochetti G.;Mearini E.;
2022

Abstract

Introduction The Italian Radical Cystectomy Registry (Registro Italiano Cistectomie – RIC) aimed to analyse outcomes of a multicenter series of patients treated with radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. Material and methods An observational, prospective, multicenter, cohort study was performed to collect data from RC and urinary diversion via open (ORC), laparoscopic (LRC), or robotic-assisted (RARC) tech-niques performed in 28 Italian Urological Departments. The enrolment was planned from January 2017 to June 2020 (goal: 1000 patients), with a total of 1425 patients included. Chi-square and t-tests were used for categorical and continuous variables. All tests were 2-sided, with a significance level set at p <0.05. Results Overall median operative-time was longer in RARCs (390 minutes, IQR 335–465) than ORCs (250, 217–309) and LRCs (292, 228–350) (p <0.001). Lymph node dissection (LND) was performed more frequently in RARCs (97.1%) and LRCs (93.5%) than ORCs (85.6%) (p <0.001), with extended-LND performed 2-fold more frequently in RARCs (61.6%) (p <0.001). The neobladder rate was significantly higher (more than one-half) in RARCs. The median estimated blood loss (EBL) rate was lower in RARCs (250 ml, 165–400) than LRCs (330, 200–600) and ORCs (400, 250–600) (p <0.001), with intraoperative blood trans-fusion rates of 11.4%, 21.7% and 35.6%, respectively (p <0.001). The conversion to open rate was slightly higher in RARCs (6.8%) than LRCs (4.3%). Intraoperative complications occurred in 1.3% of cases without statistically significant differences among the approaches. Conclusions Data from the RIC confirmed the need to collect as much data as possible in a multicenter manner. RARCs proves to be feasible with perioperative complication rates that do not differ from the other approaches.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11391/1534673
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact