Purpose: To compare the perioperative outcomes of L-RPLND, R-RPLND and O-RPLND, and determine which one can be the mainstream option.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 47 patients undergoing primary RPLND by three different surgical techniques for stage I-II NSGCT between July 2011 and April 2022 at our center. Standard open and laparoscopic RPLND was performed with usual equipment, and robotic RPLND was operated with da Vinci Si system.
Results: Forty-seven patients underwent RPLND during 2011-2022, and 26 (55.3%) of them received L-RPLND, 14 (29.8%) were operated with robot, while 7 (14.9%) were performed O-RPLND. The median follow-up was 48.0 months, 48.0 months, and 60.0 months, respectively. The oncological outcomes were comparable among all groups. In L-RPLND group, there were 8 (30.8%) cases of low grade (Clavien I-II) complications, and 3 (11.5%) cases of high-grade (Clavien III-IV) complications. In R-RPLND group, one (7.1%) low-grade complication and four (28.6%) high-grade complications were observed. In O-RPLND group, there were 2 (28.5%) cases of low-grade complications and one case (14.2%) of high-grade one. The operation duration of L-RPLND was the shortest. In O-RPLND group, the number of positive lymph nodes were higher than other two groups. Patients undergoing open surgery had lower (p < 0.05) red blood cell count, hemoglobin level, and higher (p < 0.05) estimated blood loss, white blood cell count than those receiving either laparoscopic or robotic surgery.
Conclusion: All three surgical techniques are comparable in safety, oncological, andrological, and reproductive outcomes under the circumstance of not using primary chemotherapy. L-RPLND might be the most cost-effective option.
Keywords: Laparoscopic surgery; Open surgery; Retroperitoneal lymph node dissection; Robotic Surgery; Testicular cancer.
© 2023. The Author(s).