Robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer

Testicular Cancer Treatments and Sexuality: A Narrative Review

The incidence of testicular cancer (TC) has been rapidly increasing over the past years. Diagnosis and early treatment have shown good oncological control, guaranteeing the patient different treatment approaches according to histology and tumor stage. Currently, physicians usually prioritize oncological outcomes over sexual outcomes and quality of life, considering as a first aim the overall survival of the patients; however, differently from other neoplasms, quality of life is still strongly affected among TC patients, and sexual outcomes are frequently compromised after each TC treatment. Several studies have suggested that each treatment approach may be associated with sexual dysfunctions, including erectile dysfunction, ejaculatory disorders, fertility issues, and hormonal changes. Since testicular cancer patients are more frequently young men, the subject of this work is substantial and should be analyzed in detail to help specialists in the management of this disease. The aim of the current narrative review is to generally describe every treatment for TC, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, and to establish which sexual dysfunction may be specifically associated with each therapy.

Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) is an effective treatment for testicular tumors. In recent years, with the development of robotics, many urological procedures performed via standard laparoscopy have been replaced by robots. Our objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (R-RPLND) versus Non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (NR-RPLND) in testicular cancer.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched for literature on robotic surgery for testicular germ cell tumors up to April 2023. The statistical and sensitivity analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate mean difference (MD), odds ratio(OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) effect indicators.

Results

Eight studies with 3875 patients were finally included in this study, 453 with R-RPLND and 3422 with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (O-RPLND)/laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (L-RPLND). The results showed that R-RPLND had lower rates of intraoperative blood loss (MD = -436.39; 95% CI -707.60 to -165.19; P = 0.002), transfusion (OR = 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.26; P = 0.0001), total postoperative complication rates (OR = 0.39; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; P = 0.002), and length of stay (MD=-3.74; 95% CI -4.69 to -2.78; P<0.00001). In addition, there were no statistical differences between the two groups regarding perioperative and oncological outcomes regarding total operative time, the incidence of postoperative complications grade≥III, abnormal ejaculation rate, lymph node yield, and postoperative recurrence rate.

Conclusions

The R-RPLND and O-RPLND/L-RPLND provide safe and effective retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer. Patients with R-RPLND have less intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospitalization period, fewer postoperative complications, and faster recovery. It should be considered a viable alternative to O-RPLND/L-RPLND.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023411696.

Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma in adolescents: a case series

Robotic assisted (RA) retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) has grown in popularity as it offers decreased morbidity and faster recovery compared to the open technique. Proponents of open surgery raised concerns about the oncological fidelity of the RA approach for testicular tumors where complete resection is needed. In boys > 10 years with paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), RPLND is indicated for staging purposes only. In this population, the RA technique should provide its benefits without concerns for oncological compromise. We present an analysis of RA-RPLND for boys with paratesticular RMS. We queried our institution's prospectively collected database of pediatric robotic cases for patients undergoing RA-RPLND post-radical orchiectomy for paratesticular mass, confirmed by pathology as RMS. Demographic, surgical, follow-up, and oncological outcomes were evaluated between 2017 and 2023. Five patients underwent RA-RPLND for paratesticular RMS. The median age was 16.1 years (15-17), with median OR time of 456 min (357-508). No conversions to open occurred. Inpatient median total opioid use was 1.8 (0.4-2.7) morphine equivalent/kg. The median lymph node yield was 27 (8-44) and post-op length of stay was 3 days (2-5). The median time to initiating adjuvant chemotherapy was 10.5 days (7-13). One patient had complications: pneumothorax attributed to central line placement and chyle leak that resolved in 1 week with dietary restriction. Our series demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the RA approach for RPLND in pediatric patients with paratesticular RMS. This is the most extensive case series currently in the literature and the only one exclusively done for paratesticular RMS.