Robotic-Assisted Radical Bladder Surgery Potentially Benefits Bladder Cancer Patients
Patients with Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer May Experience Less Loss of Blood and Shorter Hospital Stays as a Result of Robotic-Assisted Surgery, New Randomized Study in The Journal of Urology®
New York, NY, December 19, 2012 – About 30 percent of the more than 70,000 bladder cancer cases expected in 2012 are muscle invasive. In such cases, radical cystectomy is the preferred treatment. In a pilot trial, a team of investigators assessed the efficacy of open radical cystectomy (ORC) vs. robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy (RARC). While there were no significant differences in treatment outcomes, RARC resulted in decreased estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared to ORC. The results are published in the February 2013 issue of The Journal of Urology.
“In the last decade minimally invasive approaches including robotic-assisted approaches have emerged as viable surgical options for many urological malignancies with the promise of decreased morbidity with shorter hospital stays, faster recovery, and less narcotic analgesic requirements,” says lead investigator Dipen J. Parekh, MD, Professor and Chairman of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine’s Department of Urology and Director of robotic surgery; formerly at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.
The goal of the clinical trial was to provide preliminary data from a single institution’s randomized trial that evaluated the benefits of robotic-assisted vs. open surgery in patients with invasive bladder cancer. The trial, conducted between July 2009 and June 2011, involved 47 patients and was performed at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. Primary eligibility was based on candidacy for an open or robotic approach at the discretion of the treating surgeon. Forty patients were randomized individually and equally to either an ORC or RARC group using a computer randomization program. Each of the two study groups was similar in distribution of age, gender, race, body mass index, previous surgeries, operative time, postoperative complications, and final pathological stage.
Investigators evaluated five surgery outcome factors: Estimated blood loss, operative time from incision to closure, transfusion requirements, time to return of bowel function, and length of stay.
The robotic group experienced significantly decreased blood loss, accompanied by a trend toward faster return of bowel function, fewer hospitalizations beyond five days, and fewer transfusions.
“The strength of our study is the prospective randomized nature that eliminates selection biases that may have been present in prior retrospective analyses,” says Dr. Parekh. “We also believe that our study demonstrates that a prospective randomized trial comparing traditional open and robotic approaches in bladder cancer is possible.”
This investigative team has joined with several institutions nationally to build on its study and has started an advanced randomized clinical trial among multiple institutions to further compare and assess open vs. robotic-assisted radical cystectomy among patients with invasive bladder cancer. It plans to collect intermediate and long-term survival data from these same patients as well as data on quality of life, daily living activities, handgrip strength, and mobility.
# # #
Notes for editors
“Perioperative Outcomes and Oncologic Efficacy from a Pilot Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Open Versus Robotic Assisted Radical Cystectomy,” by Dipen J. Parekh, Jamie Messer, John Fitzgerald, Barbara Ercole, and Robert Svatek (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.077). The Journal of Urology, Volume 189, Issue 2 (February 2013) published by Elsevier.
Full text of the article is available to credentialed journalists upon request; contact Linda Gruner at +1 212 633 3923 or email@example.com to obtain copies. To schedule an interview with the authors contact Lisa Worley at +1 305 243 5184 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
About The Journal of Urology®
Established in 1917, The Journal of Urology (www.jurology.com) is the official journal of the American Urological Association (www.auanet.org). It is the most widely read and highly cited journal in the field. It brings to its readership all the clinically relevant information needed to stay at the forefront of this dynamic field. This top-ranking journal presents investigative studies on critical areas of research and practice, survey articles providing short condensations of the best and most important urology literature worldwide and practice-oriented reports on interesting clinical observations
Elsevier is a world-leading provider of scientific, technical and medical information products and services. The company works in partnership with the global science and health communities to publish more than 2,000 journals, including The Lancet and Cell, and close to 20,000 book titles, including major reference works from Mosby and Saunders. Elsevier’s online solutions include ScienceDirect, Scopus, Reaxys, ClinicalKey and Mosby’s Suite, which enhance the productivity of science and health professionals, and the SciVal suite and MEDai’s Pinpoint Review, which help research and health care institutions deliver better outcomes more cost-effectively.
A global business headquartered in Amsterdam, Elsevier employs 7,000 people worldwide. The company is part of Reed Elsevier Group plc, a world leading provider of professional information solutions. The group employs more than 30,000 people, including more than 15,000 in North America. Reed Elsevier Group plc is owned equally by two parent companies, Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV. Their shares are traded on the London, Amsterdam and New York Stock Exchanges using the following ticker symbols: London: REL; Amsterdam: REN; New York: RUK and ENL.
+1 212 633 3923