Safety and Clinical Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Kidney Transplant Patients: A Systematic Review

被引:11
|
作者
Zeng, Jiping [1 ]
Christiansen, Andrew [2 ]
Pooli, Aydin [3 ]
Qiu, Fang [4 ]
LaGrange, Chad A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Coll Med, Omaha, NE 68198 USA
[2] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Div Urol, Omaha, NE 68198 USA
[3] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Urol, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[4] Univ Nebraska Med Ctr, Dept Biostat, Coll Publ Hlth, Omaha, NE 68198 USA
关键词
robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; kidney transplant; prostate cancer; POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGINS; RENAL-TRANSPLANTATION; MYCOPHENOLATE-MOFETIL; PROSTATIC-CARCINOMA; 1ST EXPERIENCE; RECIPIENTS; CANCER; RISK; MALIGNANCIES; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1089/end.2018.0394
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) based on available literature. Materials and Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science through robot AND prostatectomy AND transplant. Three authors separately reviewed the records to select the relevant articles with any discrepancies solved by open discussion. Patient age, prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and tumor stage were recorded as well as intraoperative and postoperative complications, length of stay, surgical margin status, and disease recurrence, if provided. The operative techniques and modification/adjustments to standard port placements were also reviewed. We also include our case report in this review. Results: We retrieved 10 articles reporting clinical data on RARP for kidney transplant patients, including 5 case series (level 4) and 5 case reports (level 4). A total of 35 kidney transplant recipients undergoing RARP were analyzed in this systematic review, one case in our institution included. None of the cases had major technical difficulties precluding the operation. Technical modifications to the standard technique were described in 10 of the 11 articles specifically including modifications to port placement (54% of patients), development of the space of Retzius (60% of patients), and performance of lymphadenectomy. Mean operative time was 220 minutes. Perioperative complication rate was 17.1% (6 of 35 patients), with only one Clavien III or greater complication. The rate of positive surgical margins was found to be 31.4%. Data on biochemical recurrence revealed a combined rate of 18.1%. Conclusions: RARP is technically feasible for treating localized prostate cancer in RTRs. Graft function did not deteriorate in any patient. Modifications to the standard technique should be considered specifically for port placement, development of the space of Retzius, and performance of lymphadenectomy. Oncologic outcomes remain difficult to interpret given the small number of reported cases.
引用
收藏
页码:935 / 943
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Comparison of surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer
    Inkaya, Abdurrahman
    Tahra, Ahmet
    Sobay, Resul
    Kumcu, Ali
    Kucuk, Eyup Veli
    Boylu, Ugur
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 45 (06): : 410 - 417
  • [42] Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes in obese patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus open radical prostatectomy (ORP): a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wang, Chong-jian
    Chen, Cai-xia
    Liu, Yang
    Wen, Zhi
    Li, Hong-yuan
    Huang, Hao-tian
    Yang, Xue-song
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2024, 18 (01)
  • [43] Management of erectile dysfunction following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review
    Marchioni, Michele
    De Francesco, Piergustavo
    Castellucci, Roberto
    Papalia, Rocco
    Sarikaya, Selcuk
    Gomez Rivas, Juan
    Schips, Luigi
    Scarpa, Roberto M.
    Esperto, Francesco
    MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2020, 72 (05) : 543 - 554
  • [44] Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: a systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes
    Checcucci, Enrico
    Veccia, Alessandro
    Fiori, Cristian
    Amparore, Daniele
    Manfredi, Matteo
    Di Dio, Michele
    Morra, Ivano
    Galfano, Antonio
    Autorino, Riccardo
    Bocciardi, Aldo Massimo
    Dasgupta, Prokar
    Porpiglia, Francesco
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 125 (01) : 8 - 16
  • [45] Comparison of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis
    Jiang, Yu-Li
    Zheng, Gao-Feng
    Jiang, Ze-Peng
    Zhen-Li
    Zhou, Xie-Lai
    Zhou, Jin
    Ye, Chun-Hua
    Wang, Kang-Er
    BMC UROLOGY, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [46] Comparison of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy vs standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis
    Yu-Li Jiang
    Gao-Feng Zheng
    Ze-Peng Jiang
    Xie-Lai Zhen-Li
    Jin Zhou
    Chun-Hua Zhou
    Kang-Er Ye
    BMC Urology, 20
  • [47] Best Evidence Regarding the Superiority or Inferiority of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Eifler, John B.
    Cookson, Michael S.
    UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 41 (04) : 493 - +
  • [48] Comparison of the initial robot-assisted radical prostatectomy results with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
    Agreda, Fernando
    Raventos, Carles
    Planos, Jacques
    Trilla, Enrique
    Morote, Juan
    ARCHIVOS ESPANOLES DE UROLOGIA, 2014, 67 (02): : 185 - 190
  • [49] Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Previous Renal Transplantation
    Smith, Damien L.
    Jellison, Forrest C.
    Heldt, Jonathan P.
    Tenggardjaja, Christopher
    Bowman, Ryan J.
    Jin, Daniel H.
    Chamberlin, Joshua
    Lui, Paul D.
    Baldwin, D. Duane
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2011, 25 (10) : 1643 - 1647
  • [50] Transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and surgical outcomes
    Zhou, Xiaochen
    Fu, Bin
    Zhang, Cheng
    Liu, Weipeng
    Guo, Ju
    Chen, Luyao
    Lei, Enjun
    Zhang, Xu
    Wang, Gongxian
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 126 (02) : 300 - 308