Submit to Cancers Review for Cancers Propose a Special Issue

Journal Browser

► Journal Browser

Robot-Assisted Urologic Cancer Surgery: Current Standards and Future Trends

Print Special Issue Flyer
Special Issue Editors
Special Issue Information
Keywords
Published Papers

A special issue of Cancers (ISSN 2072-6694). This special issue belongs to the section "Clinical Research of Cancer".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 August 2023) | Viewed by 6582

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Juan Gómez Rivas

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Hospital Clínico San Carlos de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Interests: urological oncology; laparoscopy and robotics; kidney transplant
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Prof. Dr. Jesús Moreno-Sierra

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Interests: urological oncology; functional and female urology; robotics
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The field of robotic surgery has grown exponentially over the last decade. The number and availability of robotic systems indicate a significant trend in its increasing dissemination and routine use. With the aim of ensuring that surgeries become more precise, standardized, and efficient, surgical robots are being adopted in almost every field of surgery. This success translates into the “democratization” of surgery in healthcare systems in which the skills of the physician are enhanced via a smoother learning curve, thus resulting in a more uniform technique being delivered to all patients with excellent results. Future improvements will have the potential to promote robotic surgery into becoming the gold standard of minimally invasive surgery. This Special Issue aims to present a collection of experiences from around the globe on robotic surgery, new systems, and future trends.

Original research articles and reviews are welcome for submission to this Special Issue. Research areas to be covered may include (but are not limited to) the following: procedures due to urological–oncological conditions (bladder, kidney, prostate, retroperitoneum, etc.), future trends such as 3D reconstruction, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence, among others.

We look forward to receiving your contributions.

You may choose our Joint Special Issue in Current Oncology.

Dr. Juan Gómez Rivas
Prof. Dr. Jesús Moreno-Sierra
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Cancers is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2900 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

prostate
bladder
kidney
retroperitoneum
urology
robotics
oncology
surgery

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers

Research

Jump to: Other

12 pages, 820 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Theranostic Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Things Understood and Not Understood

by Chao-Yu Hsu, Che-Hsueh Yang, Min-Che Tung, Hung-Jen Liu and Yen-Chuan Ou

Cancers 2023, 15(17), 4288; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15174288 - 27 Aug 2023

Cited by 1 | Viewed by 943

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to explore the benefits of theranostic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (T-RARP) for clinically highly suspicious prostate cancer (PCa) without proven biopsies. Material and Methods: Between February 2016 and December 2020, we included men with clinically highly suspicious PCa in this study. They were assessed to have possible localized PCa without any initial treatments, and were categorized into previous benign biopsies or without biopsies. Furthermore, another group of malignant biopsies with RARP in the same time frame was adopted as the control group. The endpoints were to compare the oncological outcome and functional outcome between malignant biopsies with RARP and T-RARP. p < 0.05 was considered to be significant. Results: We included 164 men with proven malignant biopsies treated with RARP as the control group. For T-RARP, we included 192 men. Among them, 129 were preoperatively benign biopsies, and 63 had no biopsies before T-RARP. Approximately 75% of men in the T-RARP group had malignant pathology in their final reports, and the other 25% had benign pathology. T-RARP provides several oncological advantages, such as a higher initial pathological T stage, lower Gleason grade, and lower odds of positive surgical margins. However, the biochemical recurrence rates were not significantly decreased. From our cohort, T-RARP (odds ratio with 95% confidence interval; erectile recovery: 3.19 (1.84–5.52), p < 0.001; continence recovery: 2.25 (1.46–3.48), p < 0.001) could result in better recovery of functional outcomes than malignant biopsies with RARP. Conclusions: For clinically highly suspicious PCa, T-RARP was able to detect around 75% of PCa cases and preserved their functional outcomes maximally. However, in 25% of men with benign pathology, approximately 6% would have incontinence and 10% would have erectile impairment. This part should be sufficiently informed of the potential groups considering T-RARP. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Robot-Assisted Urologic Cancer Surgery: Current Standards and Future Trends)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 568 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Pelvic Lymphadenectomy May Not Improve Biochemical Recurrence-Free Survival in Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Japan (The MSUG94 Group)

by Sanae Namiki, Makoto Kawase, Shin Ebara, Tomoyuki Tatenuma, Takeshi Sasaki, Yoshinori Ikehata, Akinori Nakayama, Masahiro Toide, Tatsuaki Yoneda, Kazushige Sakaguchi, Jun Teishima, Kazuhide Makiyama, Takahiro Inoue, Hiroshi Kitamura, Kazutaka Saito, Fumitaka Koga, Shinji Urakami and Takuya Koie

Cancers 2022, 14(23), 5803; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235803 - 25 Nov 2022

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 1208

Abstract

In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we aimed to evaluate whether pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) improved biochemical recurrence (BCR) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in Japan. A multicenter retrospective cohort study of 3195 PCa patients undergoing RARP at nine institutions in Japan was conducted. Enrolled patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent RARP without PLND (non-PLND group) and those who underwent PLND (PLND group). The primary endpoint was biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) in PCa patients who underwent PLND. We developed a propensity score analysis to reduce the effects of selection bias and potential confounding factors. Propensity score matching resulted in 1210 patients being enrolled in the study. The 2-year BRFS rate was 95.0% for all patients, 95.8% for the non-PLND group, and 94.3% for the PLND group (p = 0.855). For the all-risk group according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk stratification, there were no significant differences between patients who did and did not undergo PLND. Based on the results of the log-rank study, PLND may be unnecessary for patients with PCa undergoing RARP. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Robot-Assisted Urologic Cancer Surgery: Current Standards and Future Trends)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

11 pages, 564 KiB

Open AccessSystematic Review

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy in the New Era: Systematic Review

by Estefanía Ruiz Guerrero, Ana Victoria Ojeda Claro, María José Ledo Cepero, Manuel Soto Delgado and José Luis Álvarez-Ossorio Fernández

Cancers 2023, 15(6), 1793; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15061793 - 16 Mar 2023

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 1681

Abstract

(1) Background: In recent years there have been advances in imaging techniques, in addition to progress in the surgery of renal tumors directed towards minimally invasive techniques. Thus, nephron-sparing surgery has become the gold standard for the treatment of T1 renal masses. The aim of this study is to investigate the benefits of robotic partial nephrectomy in comparison with laparoscopic nephrectomy. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA criteria during September 2022. We included clinical trials, and cohort and case-control studies published between 2000 and 2022. This comprised studies performed in adult patients with T1 renal cancer and studies comparing robotic with open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. A risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Newcastle—Ottawa scale. (3) Results: We observed lower hot ischemia times in the robotic surgery groups, although at the cost of an increase in total operative time, without appreciating the differences in terms of serious surgical complications (Clavien III–V). (4) Conclusions: Robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe procedure, with a shorter learning curve than laparoscopic surgery and with all the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Robot-Assisted Urologic Cancer Surgery: Current Standards and Future Trends)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 3610 KiB

Open AccessSystematic Review

Robot-Assisted Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Targeted versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy; Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by Vladislav Petov, Camilla Azilgareeva, Anastasia Shpikina, Andrey Morozov, German Krupinov, Vasiliy Kozlov, Nirmish Singla, Juan Gómez Rivas, Moreno-Sierra Jesús, Stefano Puliatti, Enrico Checcucci, Severin Rodler, Ines Rivero Belenchon, Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski, Alessandro Veccia, Jonathan Mcfarland, Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Mark Taratkin and Dmitry Enikeev

Cancers 2023, 15(4), 1181; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041181 - 13 Feb 2023

Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2002

Abstract

Introduction: Robot-assisted devices have been recently developed for use in prostate biopsy. However, it is possible advantages over standard biopsy remain unclear. We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance and safety of robot-assisted targeted (RA-TB) and systematic prostate biopsies (RA-SB). Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and Scopus databases. The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero (CRD42021269290). The primary outcome was the clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate. The secondary outcomes included the overall detection rate of PCa, cancer detection rate per core, and complications. Results: The clinically significant cancer detection rate, overall cancer detection rate, and “per patient” did not significantly differ between RA-TB and RA-SB [OR = 1.02 (95% CI 0.83; 1.26), p = 0.05, I² = 62% and OR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.78; 1.17), p = 0.17, I² = 40%, respectively]. There were no differences in the clinically insignificant cancer detection rate “per patient” between RA-TB and RA-SB [OR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.54; 1.21), p = 0.31, I² = 0%]. RA-TB had a significantly higher cancer detection rate “per core” [OR = 3.01 (95% CI 2.77; 3.27), p < 0.0001, I² = 96%]. Conclusion: RA-TB and RA-SB are both technically feasible and have comparable clinical significance and overall PCa detection rates. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Robot-Assisted Urologic Cancer Surgery: Current Standards and Future Trends)

► Show Figures