Laparoscopic versus open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a cost analysis

Alternative approaches to retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes based on surgical approach for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in patients with paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (PT-RMS).

METHODS

Patients undergoing RPLND for PT-RMS over 10 years at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Length of stay (LOS), complications, oral morphine equivalents per kilogram (OME/Kg), lymph node yield, and time to chemotherapy were assessed. The surgical approaches compared were: open transabdominal, open extraperitoneal, laparoscopic, and retroperitoneoscopic. For cases with lymphatic mapping, indocyanine green (ICG) was injected into the spermatic cord.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included: five open transabdominal, six open extraperitoneal, three laparoscopic, and six retroperitoneoscopic operations. LOS was shorter in the retroperitoneoscopic group than laparoscopic (p = 0.029) and both open groups (p < 0.001). Mean OME/kg used was lowest in the retroperitoneoscopic (0.13 ± 0.15) group compared to laparoscopic (0.68 ± 0.53, p = 0.043), open transabdominal (14.90 ± 8.87, p = 0.003), and extraperitoneal (10.11 ± 2.44, p < 0.001). Time to chemotherapy was shorter for retroperitoneoscopic patients (0.13 days ± 0.15) compared to open transabdominal (15.6 days±6.5, p = 0.005). There was no difference in lymph node yield between groups. Spermatic cord ICG demonstrated iliac lymph node avidity on near-infrared spectroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive RPLND appears to offer a faster recovery without compromising lymph node yield for patients with PT-RMS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Laparoscopic Surgery in Urologic Oncology

Background

Techniques in genitourinary oncologic surgery have evolved over the past several years, shifting from traditional open approaches toward minimally invasive routes by laparoscopy.

Methods

We reviewed the literature on laparoscopic surgery for genitourinary cancer, with emphasis on contemporary indications, complications, and oncologic outcome of laparoscopic surgery for urologic malignancies.

Results

All urologic oncology procedures have been performed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy is becoming the preferred approach for managing kidney cancer. The initial experience with nephroureterectomy is encouraging. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is rapidly becoming the standard in Europe and is the procedure of choice in many centers in the United States.

Conclusions

When following the open oncologic principles for the surgical treatment of malignancies, laparoscopy offers similar oncologic clinical outcomes, less morbidity, improved operative precision, and reduced convalescence time.

[Comments on retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy - laparoscopic versus robotic]

Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in high risk clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT) plays a limited role in modern uro-oncology due to the superior therapeutic efficacy of even one cycle of PEB (cysplatin, etoposide, bleomycin) chemotherapy. There might be an indication for the rare case of pure mature teratoma with unfavorable prognostic risk factors. If RPLND is performed for clinical stage I NSGCT it always has to be performed in a nerve-sparing technique and within the well-defined boundaries of an anatomically adequate template in order to avoid unnecessary adjuvant systemic chemotherapy. In this aspect, laparoscopic RPLND is inferior to open RPLND as basically all patients with lymph node positive disease receive adjuvant chemotherapy. The evidence for robotic-assisted RPLND is too weak to draw any clinically useful conclusions. Currently, it is an experimental procedure.Postchemotherapy RPLND (PC-RPLND) remains a surgery for tertiary referral centres due to the complexity of the surgical intervention and the high probability of adjunctive visceral and/or vascular surgery. In accordance with international guidelines it remains a domain for an open surgical approach. Laparoscopic PC-RPLND is reserved for small residual masses with the option of a unilateral modified template resection in very experienced laparoscopic centres. With regard to robotic-assisted PC-RPLND there is no evidence in the literature with regard to morbidity and complications, short-term and long-term oncological results being in favor of this experimental approach.

Controversial technology: the Chunnel and the laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND)

• Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND) was first introduced in 1992, initially as a staging procedure. • With advances in instrumentation and laparoscopic techniques, as well as improved understanding of laparoscopic anatomy, L-RPLND has developed to duplicate open RPLND. • Unlike the relatively rapid adoption of laparoscopy for other applications including nephrectomy and prostatectomy, L-RPLND has been slow to be universally accepted. • The limited numbers of patients requiring RPLND and technical challenges in performing the dissection have undoubtedly contributed to its delayed reception. • This review will present available data on this technique and discuss issues potentially inhibiting acceptance by traditional surgeons.

Retroperitoneal Surgery in the Treatment of Germ-Cell Tumors of the Testis: Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection (RPLND)

Germ-cell tumors of the testis (GCTT) are rare, but have a high social impact. In fact they represent no more than 1% of male tumors (about 700 new cases per year in Italy), but electively occur in young patients, 20 to 40 years old, during their fully mature social and working life. More than 80% of patients are cured and return to a normal social, sexual, and working life. Improvements achieved both in diagnosis, with the use of scans (CT, MRI, US and recently PET) and of serum tumor markers alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), beta-fraction of human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and mainly in treatment, through the amelioration of radiotherapy and surgical techniques and, especially, with the introduction of Cisplatin, Etoposide and Ifosfamide in Chemotherapic regimens, have made germ-cell tumor a model of “curable disease”. Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) has indications in patients with clinical stage I (CS1) as well as in advanced disease, where it is integrated in the multimodality treatment. Anatomical studies, as well as a long-term experience, have gradually but consistently modified the surgical techniques of RPLND. Currently, “nerve sparing” RPLND represents a safe management of CS1 nonseminomatous germ cell testicular tumor with minimal morbidity and excellent outcomes. Nonetheless, surveillance and adjuvant chemotherapy are as effective as RPLND, but, in our opinion, associated with some discomforts for the patients. Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (Lap-RPLND) is gaining popularity as a minimally invasive staging procedure for clinical stage I nonseminomatous testicular carcinoma, but its therapeutic role is still under investigation.

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy in the management of low‐stage testicular cancer: Technique and results

Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is still the most sensitive and specific method for detection of lymph node metastases of testicular cancer. Because of its invasiveness and morbidity the acceptance of open RPLND has decreased significantly resulting in a diagnostic deficit. To reduce morbidity and to increase the acceptance of RPLND, laparoscopy has been introduced. Meanwhile, clinical data with long-term follow-ups are available demonstrating the technical feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic RPLND. Studies comparing laparoscopy and open surgery could show advantages for the laparoscopic approach concerning blood loss, intraoperative complications and operative time. Antegrade ejaculation can be preserved in the majority of patients. In conclusion, laparoscopic RPLND is a safe method for the management of low-stage germ cell tumors with minimal invasiveness and excellent clinical results. With an increasing number of urologists trained in laparoscopy and an increasing number of published data, it may become a standard approach for low-stage nonseminomatous testicular cancer.

Laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors: current status

We review the published literature regarding the technical feasibility, oncologic outcomes, morbidity, and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (LRPLND). With proof that it is feasible, several centers have become expert in LRPLND and morbidity appears to be less than that of open RPLND. As the technique improves, it is likely that LRPLND will become equally if not more cost-effective than conventional RPLND. However, the oncologic outcomes, while on par with open RPLND series, are difficult to attribute to successful LRPLND alone when nearly all patients with positive lymph nodes received chemotherapy postoperatively. Although uncertainties exist, LRPLND holds much future promise.

Quality of life after laparoscopic and open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in clinical Stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumor: A comparison study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the postoperative quality of life (QOL) and reconvalescence in patients with clinical Stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumor (NSGCT) after laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND) and the open procedure (O-RPLND).

METHODS

Twenty-one patients with NSGCT who underwent transperitoneal L-RPLND were matched and compared with 29 patients who underwent O-RPLND. The operative, QOL, and recovery data and complications and cure rates were analyzed for both groups.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time for the L-RPLND and O-RPLND groups was 14 months (range 6 to 20) and 26 months (range 8 to 38), respectively. No major complication requiring open surgical revision or prolongation of hospitalization was observed intraoperatively or postoperatively in either group. However, the early and late minor postoperative complications were significantly greater in the O-RPLND group than in the L-RPLND group (P <0.001). The L-RPLND patients had a significantly shorter hospitalization, greater QOL scores, and a faster return to normal activities than did the O-RPLND patients (all P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

L-RPLND for patients with clinical Stage I NSGCT is a safe and efficacious procedure, with a faster reconvalescence and greater postoperative QOL than after O-RPLND.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is considered the gold standard for renal donation. In the hands of experienced laparoscopists it provides a safe and equally effective alternative to open nephrectomy, and recipient graft function has been shown to be equivalent regardless of the procurement method utilized. Complication rates and postoperative donor renal function are equivalent to that of open nephrectomy, whereas recovery time is significantly shorter and surgical scars more cosmetic with the laparoscopic approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in preoperative imaging and laparoscopic technique have enabled surgeons to broaden the patient population considered for donor nephrectomy. Improved three-dimensional imaging facilitates operative planning and intraoperative dissection, and the retroperitoneoscopic approach has decreased operative time. Acquisition of laparoscopic skills has also enabled surgeons to perform donor nephrectomies on kidneys that previously would have been considered less desirable for donation (e.g. right-sided or with anomalous vasculature).

SUMMARY

End-stage renal disease and the need for renal transplantation continue to be major medical concerns in the United States and worldwide. Advances in donor nephrectomy have reduced the demand for organs by increasing the potential organ pool while limiting risk to donors. As imaging and laparoscopic techniques continue to advance, it is anticipated that minimally invasive donor nephrectomy will continue to evolve. This review summarizes the developments to date.

Modeling the Cost of Management Options for Stage I Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors: A Decision Tree Analysis

Purpose

Patients with clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCTs) have been managed with surveillance, chemotherapy, or retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy (RPLND) with similar survival outcomes. Cost factors influencing the choice of therapy were evaluated using computer-based decision analysis.

Methods

A detailed model was developed that integrates projected costs for more than 60 possible treatment outcomes. It incorporates primary, adjuvant, and salvage chemotherapy, primary and postchemotherapy RPLND, and both laparoscopic and open surgical approaches. Starting values and probabilities were derived from a comprehensive meta-analysis of the last 25 years of testes cancer literature. Hypothesis testing was performed using sensitivity analysis.

Results

The model predicts a cost premium for both primary chemotherapy (18.7%) and RPLND (51.7%) compared with surveillance. If laparoscopic RPLND was practiced, the cost premium for primary surgery (29.1%) approached that of chemotherapy (26.4%). Open RPLND was 1.25× as costly as laparoscopic RPLND, primarily because of longer hospitalization. The choice of open RPLND yielded a 6.9% cost premium for a surveillance program in this model. For such a program, primary chemotherapy became cost advantageous when the probability of recurrence during surveillance was more than 46%.

Conclusion

This model allows a variety of treatment cost hypotheses to be tested. Primary RPLND is never cost advantageous over surveillance or primary chemotherapy. Surgical costs can significantly increase the overall cost of a surveillance program. In stage I patients with high-risk tumor characteristics, primary chemotherapy may have a cost advantage over surveillance.

Colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis for rectal cancer: a prospective, randomized study comparing handsewn vs. stapled anastomosis

PURPOSE

Colonic J-pouch-anal anastomosis performed after complete proctectomy and total mesorectal excision for adenocarcinoma of the rectum can be handsewn or stapled. Stapling the coloanal anastomosis is believed to shorten operating time and reduce morbidity, but there are no randomized trials comparing the techniques.

METHODS

Between January 1999 and May 2001, all patients with rectal adenocarcinoma requiring total mesorectal excision were randomized intraoperatively to handsewn or stapled anastomosis. Mortality, intraoperative, and postoperative findings and functional results at 3, 6, and 12 months were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients (12 females; mean age, 60 +/- 10 years) were randomized (stapled group: n = 20; handsewn group: n = 17). The two groups were comparable for age, gender, distance between the tumor and the levator ani, tumor volume, and use of preoperative radiotherapy (3 in each group). Morbidity did not differ between stapled group (3/20) and handsewn group (4/17; P > 0.05). Mean +/- standard deviation operative time was shorter in stapled group (261 +/- 40 minutes) than in handsewn group (314 +/- 46 minutes; P = 0.0008), and median distance between the anastomosis and the anal verge was shorter in handsewn group (19 +/- 9 mm) than in stapled group (27 +/- 8 mm; P = 0.01). Three patients of handsewn group and none of stapled group developed an anastomotic stricture requiring a single digital dilation (not significant). Number of stools per 24 hours, urgency, incidence of fragmented stools, degree of continence, requirement for protective pad, and/or need to take medication at 3, 6, and 12 months were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Stapled co-loanal anastomosis is significantly faster than handsewn CAA and has similar functional results. It should be the preferred technique when it is feasible.

THE NEW ECONOMICS OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: COST COMPARISON OF OPEN, LAPAROSCOPIC AND ROBOT ASSISTED TECHNIQUES

PURPOSE

We evaluated the costs components of laparoscopic (LRP) and robot assisted prostatectomy (RAP), and compared their costs to those of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A model was created using commercially available software to compare the costs of treatment with LRP, RAP or RRP. Hospital costs were obtained from a large county hospital. A literature search was performed to determine typical (average) robot costs, length of stay and operative time for RRP, LRP and RAP. We limited our analysis to mature series and included only the most recent efforts. The cost of the robot was estimated at 1,200,000 dollars with a 100,000 dollars yearly maintenance contract. It was assumed that the robot would be used across specialities for a total of 300 cases yearly in a 7-year period. We performed a series of 1 and 2-way sensitivity analyses to evaluate the costs of LRP, RAP and RRP, while varying robot costs, the number of robotic cases, hospital length of stay, operative time and cost of laparoscopic/robotic equipment.

RESULTS

RRP was the most cost-effective approach with a cost advantage of 487 dollars and 1,726 dollars over LRP and RAP, respectively. If we excluded the initial cost of purchasing a robot, the cost difference between RRP and RAP was 1,155 dollars. This large difference in RRP and RAP costs resulted from a cost of 857 dollars per case to pay for robot purchase and maintenance, and the high cost of 1,705 dollars for equipment per case. An even shorter RAP operative time (140 vs 160 minutes) and length of stay (1.2 vs 2.5 days) did not compensate for the added expenditure. LRP cost more than RRP primarily due to equipment costs (533 dollars) since the shorter hospital stay (1.3 vs 2.5 days) was compensated for by longer operative time (200 vs 160 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of new technology are typically borne out in the first years of use and RAP is no exception with high robot costs for purchase, maintenance and operative equipment overshadowing savings gained by shorter length of stay. While RRP is currently the least costly approach, LRP has proved to be almost as cost competitive as RRP, whereas RAP will require a significant decrease in the cost of the device and maintenance fees.