-
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Apr 2016Primary retroperitoneal mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (PRMCa) is a rare tumour. Prognosis and optimal management are not well established. In view of a case managed in our... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Primary retroperitoneal mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (PRMCa) is a rare tumour. Prognosis and optimal management are not well established. In view of a case managed in our Centre, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHOD
Systematic review of medical electronic databases for published data (1950-12/10/2015). No RCTs identified. Individual patient data detracted from case reports and case series were analysed
RESULTS
In total, 73 female and 5 male cases of PRMCa identified including our case. Median age at diagnosis was 42.0 years (range 18-86 years), with women being significantly younger than men at diagnosis (42.0 years versus 62.2 years, p = 0.005). A palpable abdominal mass and abdominal pain were the most common presentations in 42.9 and 23.8 % of cases, respectively. Twenty-six women were <38 years old. There were 16 women <38 years old that had surgical data reported, of which 14 underwent fertility-sparing surgery with excision of the mass. Adjuvant chemotherapy was given in 24.1 % (13/72) women. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 130 months with a median of 15 months. Of the 57 cases that had follow-up reported, recurrence occurred in 23 cases (40.4 %) within a median of 8 months from diagnosis. Median disease-free survival was 15 months (range 1-130 months). Of the women who recurred, 14 died of their disease giving 1, 2 and 5-year disease-specific survival rates of 85.9, 80.7 and 75.4 %, respectively.
CONCLUSION
PRMCa are rare and potentially aggressive tumours that often occur in young women. Removal of the tumour, adequate staging and adjuvant chemotherapy needs to be considered.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Cystadenocarcinoma, Mucinous; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Retroperitoneal Neoplasms; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 26681306
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3975-8 -
International Journal of Surgery... Sep 2023To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) versus non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) versus non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer.
METHODS
The statistical analysis software used Stata 17. The weighted mean difference (WMD) represents the continuous variable, and the dichotomous variable chooses the odds ratio, and calculates the 95% CI. This systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA criteria, and AMSTAR guidelines (assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews). The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. The upper limit of the search time frame was February 2023, and no lower limit was set.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving 862 patients. Compared with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, RA-RPLND appears to have a shorter length of stay [WMD=-1.21, 95% CI (-1.66, -0.76), P <0.05], less estimated blood loss [WMD=-0.69, 95% CI (-1.07, -0.32), P <0.05], and lower overall complications [odds ratio=0.45, 95% CI (0.28, 0.73), P <0.05]. RA-RPLND appears to have more lymph node yields than laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection [WMD=5.73, 95% CI (1.06, 10.40), P <0.05]. However, robotic versus open/laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection had similar results in operation time, lymph node positivity rate, recurrence during follow-up, and postoperative ejaculation disorders.
CONCLUSION
RA-RPLND appears to be safe and effective for testicular cancer, but longer follow-up and more studies are needed to confirm this.
Topics: Male; Humans; Testicular Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Retroperitoneal Space; Retrospective Studies; Lymph Node Excision; Treatment Outcome; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 37222676
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000520 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jun 2016To compare the perioperative outcomes of the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approaches in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To compare the perioperative outcomes of the transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (RP) approaches in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
METHODS
A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify relevant studies up to March 2016. All studies with enough data comparing TP-RAPN with RP-RAPN were included. Outcomes of interest were complication, conversion, operative time (OT), warm ischemia time (WIT), estimated blood loss (EBL), and positive surgical margin (PSM). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots.
RESULTS
Four studies with the total number of 449 patients assessing TP-RAPN (n = 229) versus RP-RAPN (n = 220) were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups in any of demographic variables. There were also no significant differences between TP-RAPN and RP-RAPN groups regarding tumor size, tumor laterality, R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score, and tumor pathology. There was marginally significant difference between the two groups regarding OT (p = 0.05, WMD: 28.03; 95% CI, 0.41-55.65). No significant differences were found regarding complication, conversion, WIT, EBL, and PSM. No obvious publication bias was observed.
CONCLUSIONS
The present meta-analysis suggests that RP-RAPN appears to be equally safe and efficacious in terms of complication, conversion, WIT, EBL and PSM compared with TP-RAPN. In addition, RP-RAPN has marginally significant advantage of shorter OT. Randomized controlled trials and high-quality observational cohort studies with large sample size and long-term follow-up are needed to update our findings.
Topics: Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Nephrectomy; Peritoneal Cavity; Retroperitoneal Space; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27107660
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.023 -
Journal of Endourology Jul 2018To compare the outcomes of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
OBJECTIVES
To compare the outcomes of retroperitoneal vs transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed through January 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid databases. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on PRISMA criteria. Only studies comparing retroperitoneal to transperitoneal approach for RAPN were deemed eligible for inclusion.
RESULTS
Seven retrospective case-control studies were identified and included in the analysis, with a total number of 1379 patients (866 for transperitoneal group; 513 for retroperitoneal group). In the retroperitoneal group, tumors were slightly larger [weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.29 cm; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.54; p = 0.02], and more frequently located posterior/lateral (odds ratio: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41-0.90; p = 0.01). In two of the studies only posterior tumors had been included. Both operating time (WMD 20.17 min; 95% CI 6.46-33.88; p = 0.004) and estimated blood loss (WMD 54.57 mL; 95% CI 6.73-102.4; p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the retroperitoneal group. In addition, length of stay was significantly shorter in the retroperitoneal group (WMD 0.46 days; CI 95% 0.15-0.76; p = 0.003). No differences were found regarding overall (p = 0.67) and major (p = 0.82) postoperative complications, warm ischemia time (p = 0.96), and positive surgical margins (p = 0.95).
CONCLUSIONS
Retroperitoneal RAPN can offer in select patients similar outcomes to those of the most common transperitoneal RAPN. Furthermore, it may be particularly advantageous for posterior upper pole and perihilar tumors and associated with reduction in operative time and hospital stay. Robotic surgeons should be ideally familiar with both approaches to adapt their surgical strategy to confront renal neoplasms from a position of technical advantage and ultimately optimize outcomes.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Case-Control Studies; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Length of Stay; Margins of Excision; Nephrectomy; Odds Ratio; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Retroperitoneal Space; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Warm Ischemia
PubMed: 29695171
DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0211 -
BJU International Apr 2013WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Laparoscopic nephrectomy is now considered to be the reference procedure for kidney cancer. It can be... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Laparoscopic nephrectomy is now considered to be the reference procedure for kidney cancer. It can be performed via a transperitoneal or retroperitoneal approach. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages. No definitive conclusions regarding objective difference between the two approaches have been reached to date. This meta-analysis indicates that in appropriately selected patients, especially patients with posteriorly located renal tumors, the retroperitoneal approach may be faster and equally safe compared with the transperitoneal approach.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficiency and safety of the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches in laparoscopic radical/partial nephrectomy (RN/PN) for renal cell carcinoma.
METHODS
A systematic search of PUBMED, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify prospective randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies that compared the outcomes of the two approaches. Outcomes of interest included perioperative and postoperative variables, surgical complications and oncological variables.
RESULTS
Twelve studies assessing transperitoneal laparoscopic RN (TLRN) vs retroperitoneal laparoscopic RN (RLRN) and six studies assessing transperitoneal laparoscopic PN (TLPN) vs retroperitoneal laparoscopic PN (RLPN) were included. The RLRN approach had a shorter time to renal artery control (weighted mean difference [WMD] 68.65 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] 40.80-96.50; P < 0.001) and a lower overall complication rate (odds ratio 2.12; 95% CI 1.30-3.47; P = 0.003) than TLRN. RLPN had a shorter operating time (WMD 48.85 min; 95% CI 29.33-68.37; P < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (WMD 1.01 days; 95% CI 0.39-1.63; P = 0.001) than TLPN. There were no significant differences between the retroperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches in other outcomes of interest.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis indicates that, in appropriately selected patients, especially patients with posteriorly located renal tumours, the retroperitoneal approach may be faster and equally safe compared with the transperitoneal approach. Despite our rigorous methodology, conclusions drawn from our pooled results should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent limitations of the included studies.
Topics: Blood Loss, Surgical; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; China; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Kidney Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Neoplasm Staging; Nephrectomy; Operative Time; Patient Safety; Peritoneal Cavity; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retroperitoneal Space; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23106964
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11598.x -
Urologic Oncology Apr 2024To evaluate the oncological outcomes and safety of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in patients with clinical stage (CS) II seminomatous testicular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To evaluate the oncological outcomes and safety of primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) in patients with clinical stage (CS) II seminomatous testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT). A literature search using PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was conducted on July 2023 to identify relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The pooled recurrence rate and treatment-related complications were calculated using a random effects model. Overall 8 studies published between 1997 and 2023 including a total of 355 patients were selected for systematic review and meta-analysis with the overall median follow-up of 38 months. The overall and infield recurrence rate were 0.14 (95% CI: 0.08-0.22) and 0.04 (95% CI: 0.00-0.11), respectively. The overall pooled rate of ≥ Clavien Dindo grade III complications was 0.04 (95% CI: 0.01-0.10); there was no significant heterogeneity (I^2 = 35.10%, P = 0.19). Antegrade ejaculation was preserved with the overall pooled rate of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95-1.00); there was no significant heterogeneity on Chi-square and I2 tests (I^2 = 0.00%, P = 0.58). Primary RPLND is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with CS II seminomatous TGCT resulting highly promising cure rates combined with low treatment-associated adverse events, at medium-term follow-up. However, owing to the lack of comparative studies to the current standard of care and the limited follow-up, individual decision must be made with the informed patient in a shared decision process together with a multidisciplinary team.
Topics: Male; Humans; Seminoma; Retroperitoneal Space; Neoplasms, Germ Cell and Embryonal; Lymph Node Excision; Testicular Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Neoplasm Staging
PubMed: 38360519
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2024.01.014 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology May 2023The debate on whether to choose a transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach for treating upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) with laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and pooled analysis of comparative outcomes.
BACKGROUND
The debate on whether to choose a transperitoneal (TP) or retroperitoneal (RP) approach for treating upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) with laparoscopic surgery has been drawing attention. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the existing evidence regarding oncologic and perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (TLNU) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (RLNU) in managing UTUC.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar for identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the outcomes of TLNU and RLNU for UTUC. Continuous variables were represented by weighted mean difference (WMD) and standard mean difference (SMD), while binary variables were represented by odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the robustness of the estimates.
RESULT
Six observational studies were incorporated into this meta-analysis. The overall TLNU was associated with significantly shorter operating time (WMD - 19.85; 95% CI - 38.03 to - 1.68; P = 0.03); longer recovery time of intestinal function (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.84; P = 0.02). However, the terms of estimated blood loss (WMD - 5.72; 95% CI - 19.6 to - 8.15; P = 0.42); length of stay (WMD - 0.35; 95% CI - 1.61 to 0.91; P = 0.59), visual analog pain scale (WMD - 0.38; 95% CI - 0.99 to 0.84; P = 0.22); drainage duration (WMD - 0.22; 95% CI - 0.61 to 0.17; P = 0.26); overall complication rates (OR 1.24; 95% CI 0.58 to 2.63; P = 0.58); local recurrence rate (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.3 to 1.21; P = 0.16); distant metastasis (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.04 to 20.77; P = 0.97); 1-year overall survival (OS) (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.1 to 2.01; P = 0.3) showed no difference between TLNU and RLUN.
CONCLUSION
TLNU provides similar surgical outcomes and oncologic results compared to RLUN; however, TLNU has a shorter procedure time and prolonged intestinal function recovery time. Due to the heterogeneity among the studies, randomized clinical trials with follow-ups in the long term are required to obtain more definite results.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ , identifier CRD42023388554.
Topics: Humans; Nephroureterectomy; Kidney Neoplasms; Ureteral Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Carcinoma, Transitional Cell; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Urinary Tract; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37248555
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-03046-1 -
BMC Surgery Sep 2023Surgery is the mainstay of treatment and completeness of surgical resection is critical to achieve local control for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). En-bloc resection of...
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment and completeness of surgical resection is critical to achieve local control for retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS). En-bloc resection of adjacent organs, including major abdominal vessels, is often required to achieve negative margins. The aim of this review was to summarise the available evidence to assess the relative benefits and disadvantages of an aggressive surgical approach with vascular resection in patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS).
METHODS
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for relevant studies published from inception up to August 1, 2022. We performed a systematic review of the available studies to assess the safety and long-term survival results of vascular resection for RPS.
RESULTS
We identified a total of 23 studies for our review. Overall postoperative in-hospital or 30-day mortality rate of patients with primary iliocaval leiomyosarcoma was 3% (11/359), and the major complication rate was 13%. The recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates after the follow-up period varied between 15% and 52%, and the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates ranged from 25 to 78%. Overall postoperative in-hospital or 30-day mortality rate of patients with RPSs receiving vascular resection was 3%, and the major complication rate was 27%. The RFS rates after the follow-up period were 18-86%, and the 5-year OS rates varied between 50% and 73%. There were no significant differences in the rates of RFS (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.74-1.19; p = 0.945) and OS (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.66-1.36; p = 0.774) between the extended resection group and tumour resection alone group.
CONCLUSIONS
With adequate preparation and proper management, for patients with RPSs involving major vessels, aggressive surgical approach with vascular resection can achieve R0/R1 resection and improve survival.
Topics: Humans; Retroperitoneal Neoplasms; Sarcoma; Soft Tissue Neoplasms; Hospitals; Postoperative Period
PubMed: 37700246
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02178-1 -
World Journal of Surgical Oncology Mar 2023Recently, there has been a significant amount of debate concerning the question of whether laparoscopic surgery should be performed transperitoneally or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for large-volume renal carcinoma (> 7 cm): a systematic review and pooled analysis of comparative outcomes.
BACKGROUND
Recently, there has been a significant amount of debate concerning the question of whether laparoscopic surgery should be performed transperitoneally or retroperitoneally for treating large renal tumors.
AIM
The purpose of this research is to conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of the previous research on the safety and efficacy of transperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (TLRN) and retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (RLRN) in the treatment of large-volume renal malignancies.
METHODS
An extensive search of the scientific literature was carried out utilizing PubMed, Scopus, Embase, SinoMed, and Google Scholar in order to locate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective studies that compared the effectiveness of RLRN versus TLRN in the treatment of for large renal malignancies. For the purpose of comparing the oncologic and perioperative outcomes of the two techniques, data were taken from the research studies that were included and pooled together.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies (five RCTs and nine retrospective studies) were incorporated into this meta-analysis. The overall RLRN had an association with significantly shorter operating time (OT) (MD [mean difference]: - 26.57; 95% CI [confidence interval]: - 33.39 to - 19.75; p < 0.00001); less estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD: - 20.55; CI: - 32.86 to - 8.23; p = 0.001); faster postoperative intestinal exhaust (MD: - 0.65; CI: - 0.95 to - 0.36; p < 0.00001). The terms of length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.26), blood transfusion (p = 0.26), conversion rate (p = 0.26), intraoperative complications (p = 0.5), postoperative complications (p = 0.18), local recurrence rate (p = 0.56), positive surgical margin (PSM) (p = 0.45), and distant recurrence rate (p = 0.7) did not show any differences.
CONCLUSIONS
RLRN provides surgical and oncologic results similar to TLRN, with potential advantages regarding shorter OT, EBL, and postoperative intestinal exhaust. Due to the high heterogeneity among the studies, long-term randomized clinical trials are required to obtain more definitive results.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Treatment Outcome; Kidney Neoplasms; Laparoscopy; Nephrectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36894912
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-02967-1 -
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 2016The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on primary retroperitoneal cystoadenocarcinoma (PRC), which is an extremely rare disease. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review on primary retroperitoneal cystoadenocarcinoma (PRC), which is an extremely rare disease.
METHODS
According to PRISMA guidelines, all the literature about PRC from 1977 to 2015 was reviewed. Thirty articles were selected; characteristics of the patients were collected and described; time to recurrence and overall survival (OS) were investigated when available.
RESULTS
Thirty seven patients were included of whom 33 were females; the median age at presentation was 43. PRC was more common in postmenopausal women. Surgery was the standard therapy; the role of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy was uncertain. Thirty percent of the patients relapsed after 58 months from the surgery; the rupture of the cyst occurred in 13% of the cases and it was associated with poor prognosis as well as premenopausal status. At 125 months from the diagnosis, 72% of the patients were alive and the median OS was not reached.
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review about PRC is the first performed until the date of drafting this paper. We described some clinical features of PRC and their possible prognostic value. No conclusive data can be presented due to the small population analyzed and to publication bias.
Topics: Cystadenocarcinoma; Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Prognosis; Retroperitoneal Neoplasms
PubMed: 27309542
DOI: 10.1159/000446954