Robot-assisted nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma—feasibility and complications: a single center experience

References

• Available from: https://statistik.incanet.se/urinblasecancer/
   Google Scholar
• Rouprêt M, Babjuk M, Burger M, et al. European association of urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2020 update. Eur Urol. 2021;79(1):62–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kriegmair MC, Younsi N, Hiller K, et al. Single- vs multiple-layer wound closure for flank incisions: results of a prospective, randomised, double-blinded multicentre study. BJU Int. 2021;127(1):64–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rassweiler JJ, Schulze M, Marrero R, et al. Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: is it better than open surgery? Eur Urol. 2004;46(6):690–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilic D, Evans S, Allan C, et al. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a cochrane systematic review. BJU Int. 2018;121(6):845–853.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novara G, La Falce S, Kungulli A, et al. Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt C):554–559.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zeuschner P, Vollmer SG, Linxweiler J, et al. Robot-assisted versus open radical nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: a retrospective cohort study across ten years. Surg Oncol. 2021;38:101607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Kim HJ, Lee SE, et al. Comparison of oncological and perioperative outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robotic nephroureterectomy approaches in patients with non-metastatic upper-tract urothelial carcinoma. PLOS One. 2019;14(1):e0210401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campi R, Cotte J, Sessa F, et al. Robotic radical nephroureterectomy and segmental ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a multi-institutional experience. World J Urol. 2019;37(11):2303–2311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Groote R, Decaestecker K, Larcher A, et al. Robot-assisted nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: results from three high-volume robotic surgery institutions. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(1):211–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veccia A, Antonelli A, Francavilla S, et al. Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 87,000 cases. World J Urol. 2020;38(4):845–852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liedberg F, Sörenby A. Re: improving management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2020;78(4):631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voskuilen CS, Schweitzer D, Jensen JB, et al. Diagnostic value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography for lymph node staging in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Eur Urol Oncol. 2020;3(1):73–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liedberg F. Evaluation of lymph node surgery in patients with upper urinary tract carcinoma. ISRCTN registry. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jancke G, Aljabery F, Gudjonsson S, et al. Port-site metastases after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: is there a publication bias? Eur Urol. 2018;73(4):641–642.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang Q, Yu Y, Yang B. Incidence of port site metastasis in laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy: single-institution experience. Urology. 2019;131:130–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simone G, Papalia R, Guaglianone S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy: perioperative and oncologic outcomes from a randomised prospective study. Eur Urol. 2009;56(3):520–526.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sui W, Wallis CJD, Luckenbaugh AN, et al. The impact of hospital volume on short-term and long-term outcomes for patients undergoing radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Urology. 2021;147:135–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tay LJ, Chatterton K, Colemeadow J, et al. Improving management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int. 2020;126(1):5–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birtle A, Johnson M, Chester J, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (the POUT trial): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;395(10232):1268–1277.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntire PJ, Snow JT, Robinson BD, et al. Improved correlation of urinary cytology specimens using the Paris system in biopsy-proven upper tract urothelial carcinomas. Cancer Cytopathol. 2018;126(7):498–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almås B, Øverby S, Halvorsen OJ, et al. Preoperative predictors of pathological tumour stage and prognosis may be used when selecting candidates for intensified treatment in upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Scand J Urol. 2021;55(2):100–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seisen T, Peyronnet B, Dominguez-Escrig JL, et al. Oncologic outcome of kidney-sparing surgery versus radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review by the EAU non-muscle invasive bladder cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol. 2016;70(6):1052–1068.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baboudjian M, Al Balushi K, Michel F, et al. Diagnostic ureteroscopy prior to nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma is associated with a high risk of bladder recurrence despite technical precautions to avoid tumor spillage. World J Urol. 2020;38(1):159–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afferi L, Abufaraj M, Soria F, et al. A comparison of perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2021;74(1):49–56.
   Google Scholar