Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
In Vivo
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
In Vivo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Assessment of Feasibility of Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy in Patients With Advanced Bladder Cancer Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis Therapy

KOICHI NISHIMURA, HIROKI ISHIHARA, TSUNENORI KONDO, MAKOTO TOGUCHI, HIRONORI FUKUDA, HIDEKAZU TACHIBANA, DAISUKE TOKI, KAZUHIKO YOSHIDA, JUNPEI IIZUKA, KAZUNARI TANABE and TOSHIO TAKAGI
In Vivo July 2022, 36 (4) 1801-1806; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.12895
KOICHI NISHIMURA
1Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University and Tokyo Women’s Medical University Adachi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIROKI ISHIHARA
1Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University and Tokyo Women’s Medical University Adachi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ishihara.hiroki@twmu.ac.jp
TSUNENORI KONDO
1Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University and Tokyo Women’s Medical University Adachi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MAKOTO TOGUCHI
2Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIRONORI FUKUDA
2Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIDEKAZU TACHIBANA
3Department of Urology, Saiseikai Kurihashi Hospital, Saitama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DAISUKE TOKI
1Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University and Tokyo Women’s Medical University Adachi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KAZUHIKO YOSHIDA
2Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JUNPEI IIZUKA
2Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KAZUNARI TANABE
2Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TOSHIO TAKAGI
2Department of Urology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo, Japan;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: To clarify the perioperative and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) in advanced bladder cancer (BC) patients treated with maintenance hemodialysis (HD) therapy. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients receiving HD therapy who had undergone RARC or open radical cystectomy (ORC) for BC between April 1988 and December 2021 at two affiliated institutions. We compared the surgical outcomes and survival after radical cystectomy between patients treated with RARC and those treated with ORC. Results: Thirty-six patients were evaluated, and eight (22%) and 28 (78%) received RARC and ORC, respectively. RARC was more frequently conducted than ORC in elderly patients (median: 75.5 vs. 68.2 years, p<0.05). Regarding postoperative surgical outcomes, the estimated blood loss volume (median: 75 ml vs. 627 ml, p<0.05) was significantly lower in the RARC group than that in the ORC group. A lower blood transfusion rate (25% vs. 67%, p=0.170) was observed. Moreover, there were no differences in operative time (median: 255 vs. 294 min, p=0.232) or complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade, any grade: 50% vs. 46%, p=0.858; grade 3 or more: 13% vs. 14%, p=0.897). The 11-year overall survival rate did not differ between the two groups (88% vs. 74%, p=0.365). Conclusion: The perioperative outcomes of RARC in patients undergoing HD therapy were comparable to those of ORC. RARC is a potentially feasible surgical option even in patients with high comorbidities.

  • Bladder cancer
  • robot-assisted radical cystectomy
  • maintenance hemodialysis therapy

The number of patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (HD) as a treatment for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is increasing worldwide (1, 2). In ESRD patients, an impairment in immune system and DNA repair mechanisms, a reduction in antioxidant defenses, and an accumulation of carcinogenic compounds due to reduced renal excretion, chronic infections, and inflammation have been reported to promote malignant transformation (3, 4). Indeed, multiple studies showed that the cancer risk was higher in patients undergoing HD therapy than that in the general population, especially in genitourinary cancers such as bladder cancer (BC) or renal cell carcinoma (5-7). Specifically, the risk of BC is reported to be increased by 1.5-2.5 times in patients undergoing HD therapy.

As for BC, advanced disease, including muscle-invasive BC, was more frequently observed in patients receiving HD therapy than it was in the general population (33% vs. 24%) (8). For these patients, radical cystectomy, the gold standard treatment option for advanced BC, is considered. However, radical cystectomy harbors a high risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, such risks may increase in patients receiving HD therapy because they are likely to harbor multiple complications, including HD-related complications and ESRD itself (9-11).

The surgical approach to radical cystectomy has dramatically changed over recent years, and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is currently accepted.Randomized controlled trials demonstrated that RARC resulted in a reduction in blood transfusion rate and shortened the length of postoperative hospitalization compared to open radical cystectomy (ORC) in exchange for increased operative time (12-16). These findings suggest that RARC has the potential to be a more feasible and safer surgical approach than ORC. Thus, RARC may be suitable for patients with ESRD undergoing HD. Further, as these trials were conducted in a cohort comprising strictly selected patients, data on the feasibility of RARC in patients receiving HD therapy are limited.

In this context, we aimed to clarify the feasibility of RARC in advanced BC patients treated with maintenance HD therapy for ESRD in this retrospective study.

Patients and Methods

Study design and patients. The medical records of 403 BC patients who underwent radical cystectomy at our two affiliated institutions (Tokyo Women’s Medical University and Tokyo Women’s Medical University Adachi Medical Center) from April 1988 to December 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Among 403 patients, 36 were treated with maintenance HD therapy at the time of radical cystectomy.

Until March 2018, we generally performed radical cystectomy using the open surgery approach. Following the approval from the Japanese health insurance system (April 2018), we performed RARC. Among the 36 patients, 28 underwent ORC, whereas eight patients underwent RARC.

We compared the perioperative outcomes between patients who underwent ORC and those who underwent RARC. TNM staging was performed according to the Union for International Cancer Control classification (8th edition). Postoperative complications were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo system (17).

All clinical and laboratory data were obtained from electronic databases and medical records. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Review Board of Tokyo Women’s Medical University (approval ID: 2020-0108), and performed in accordance with the principles outlined in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The requirement for informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective observational nature of this study.

Surgical approach. ORC was performed via a middle abdominal incision, and an extraperineal approach was performed to the maximum intent. RARC was performed using a six-port transperitoneal approach using the Da Vinci X/Xi system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Lymph node dissection was performed to a limited extent, which was determined by the patient’s general condition and operator’s discretion. Urinary diversion was performed in patients whose urinary volume was >500 ml/day.

Statistical analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP version 15.0.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Continuous variables were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test, whereas categorical variables were analyzed using the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

Patient background. Table I summarizes the characteristics of patients and tumors. The proportion of elderly patients was significantly higher in the RARC group than in the ORC group [median: 75.5 years (interquartile range {IQR}=68.9-81.1) vs. 68.2 years (58.5-73.0), p<0.05]. However, there were no differences in sex, smoking history, clinical symptoms, positive cytology rate, size of the main tumor, tumor multiplicity, presurgical clinical T stage, Charlson Comorbidity Index, or duration of HD therapy before radical cystectomy between the two groups (all, p>0.05). No patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy because they were considered chemo-unfit cases due to kidney dysfunction. The median follow-up period after radical cystectomy was 18.0 months (IQR=6.8-30.2) and 27.5 months (IQR=10.3-51.0) in the RARC and ORC groups, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Clinical characteristics.

Operative and postoperative outcomes. The median operative time did not differ significantly between the RARC and ORC groups [median: 255 min (IQR=174-279) vs. 294 min (IQR=220-355), p=0.231] (Table II). The urinary diversion procedure was absent in all RARC group patients but was conducted in a patient subset in the ORC group (19%). Lymph node dissection (25% vs. 57%, p=0.0717), urethrectomy (25% vs. 40%, p=0.292), and synchronous nephroureterectomy (13% vs. 29%, p=0.261) were performed more frequently in the ORC group, but the difference was not significant. The estimated blood loss volume was significantly lower [median: 75 ml (IQR=30-237) vs. 627 ml (IQR=542-798), p<0.05] and the blood transfusion rate tended to be lower (25% vs. 67%, p=0.170) in the RARC group than those in the ORC group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Operative and postoperative characteristics.

The rate of postoperative complications did not differ between the RARC and ORC groups (any grade: 50% vs. 46%, p=0.858; grade ≥3: 13% vs. 14%, p=0.897) (Table II). The number of days of postoperative hospitalization was not different [median: 10 days (IQR=7-35) vs. 9 days (IQR=7-19), p=0.937]. The pathological findings were also compared between the two groups (Table III). Infiltration into the extravesical tissues was less frequently observed in the RARC group (14% vs. 33%, p=0.324). A positive surgical margin was observed in one patient in the ORC group, but not in the RARC group. Surgical-related death was observed in two patients due to heart failure and intra-abdominal hemorrhage, but in no patient in the RARC group.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Pathological characteristics.

The rates of urinary diversion and concurrent nephroureterectomy were lower in the RARC group than in the ORC group (Table I). Therefore, this difference in the surgical approach might affect postoperative outcomes. Thus, we further compared the postoperative outcomes between the RARC (n=7) and ORC groups without urinary diversion or concurrent nephroureterectomy (n=7). This additional analysis showed comparable operative time [median: 254 min (IQR=154-267) vs. 281 min (IQR=193-336), p=0.405], significantly lower blood loss [median: 50 ml (IQR=30-250) vs. 610 ml (IQR=525-800), p<0.05], and tendency of lower rate of blood transfusion (28% vs. 71%, p=0.286) (Table IV).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Operative characteristics of RC without nephroureterectomy and urinary diversion.

Survival analysis. Finally, we compared survival after radical cystectomy between the RARC and ORC groups. During follow-up, 12 (33%) and six (17%) patients died and experienced recurrence of BC, respectively. The 1-year OS rate did not differ between the two groups (88% vs. 74%, p=0.365) (Figure 1). In addition, the 1-year RFS rate did not differ (75% vs. 70%, p=0.667) (Figure 2).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Overall survival difference between RARC and ORC. RARC: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy; ORC: open radical cystectomy.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Relapse-free survival difference between RARC and ORC. RARC: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy; ORC: open radical cystectomy.

Discussion

In this retrospective study, we evaluated the feasibility of RARC in advanced BC patients treated with maintenance HD therapy for ESRD and compared it with that of ORC. RARC was more frequently performed in elderly patients undergoing HD therapy. Nevertheless, the blood loss volume was lower and the transfusion rate tended to be low. Moreover, the operative time and complication rates were comparable between the RARC and ORC groups. Furthermore, the oncological outcomes were equivalent between the two groups. To our knowledge, this study is the first to report the surgical and oncological outcomes after RARC in patients who have undergone HD therapy for ESRD.

Several studies have indicated that ORC for patients treated with HD therapy induces a high frequency of postoperative mortality and complications. A study using data from the United States Renal Data System database revealed complication and mortality rates of 43.1% and 9.3%, respectively (11). Another case series study showed that two of four patients died postoperatively after total urinary exenteration, including radical cystectomy using an open approach (10). We also reported surgery-related deaths in two of the 17 BC patients (9). These data suggest that ORC is an effective surgical approach, but always harbors a high risk of declining postoperative outcomes.

RARC for patients undergoing HD therapy was associated with less blood loss, a lower blood transfusion rate, and comparable postoperative complication rate and length of postoperative hospitalization compared to ORC. These findings regarding lower blood loss and blood transfusion rates in the RARC conformed with the findings from previous clinical trials conducted in the general population (12-16). Additionally, our data revealed a similar operative time between RARC and ORC. Notably, these findings were observed even though RARC was more frequently conducted in elderly patients than in ORC patients. Furthermore, a feasible outcome of RARC could be observed regardless of the presence of urinary diversion or concurrent nephroureterectomy. Cumulatively, RARC is potentially feasible for patients undergoing HD therapy, which can be accepted in real-world clinical practice.

This study had several limitations. First, it was conducted retrospectively using data from a small sample size from only two institutions. Therefore, any findings were affected by inevitable selection bias. Second, the relatively short followup time in the RARC group may make the survival data difficult to interpret. Third, the lack of some data in the ORC group might have affected the analyses. Fourth, the modality and accuracy of imaging examinations steadily increased throughout the study period, and this nonsurgical effect could have influenced the outcomes. Furthermore, advancements in surgical devices may improve postoperative outcomes.

In conclusion, the perioperative outcomes of RARC in patients undergoing HD for ESRD were comparable to those of ORC. Therefore, this surgical approach is potentially feasible and applicable on these high-risk patients in a real-world setting. Further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm our findings.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Koichi Nishimura, Hiroki Ishihara, Tsunenori Kondo, Makoto Toguchi, Kazunari Tanabe and Toshio Takagi were involved in study design and data interpretation. Koichi Nishimura, Hiroki Ishihara were involved in data analysis. All Authors critically revised the manuscript, approved the manuscript to be published, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this study.

  • Received March 22, 2022.
  • Revision received May 13, 2022.
  • Accepted May 16, 2022.
  • Copyright © 2022, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Nitta K
    : 2018 Annual Dialysis Data Report, JSDT Renal Data Registry. Nihon Toseki Igakkai Zasshi 52(12): 679-754, 2020. DOI: 10.4009/jsdt.52.679
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Saran R,
    2. Robinson B,
    3. Abbott KC,
    4. Bragg-Gresham J,
    5. Chen X,
    6. Gipson D,
    7. Gu H,
    8. Hirth RA,
    9. Hutton D,
    10. Jin Y,
    11. Kapke A,
    12. Kurtz V,
    13. Li Y,
    14. McCullough K,
    15. Modi Z,
    16. Morgenstern H,
    17. Mukhopadhyay P,
    18. Pearson J,
    19. Pisoni R,
    20. Repeck K,
    21. Schaubel DE,
    22. Shamraj R,
    23. Steffick D,
    24. Turf M,
    25. Woodside KJ,
    26. Xiang J,
    27. Yin M,
    28. Zhang X and
    29. Shahinian V
    : US Renal Data System 2019 annual data report: Epidemiology of kidney disease in the United States. Am J Kidney Dis 75(1 Suppl 1): A6-A7, 2020. PMID: 31704083. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.09.003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Syed-Ahmed M and
    2. Narayanan M
    : Immune dysfunction and risk of infection in chronic kidney disease. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis 26(1): 8-15, 2019. PMID: 30876622. DOI: 10.1053/j.ackd.2019.01.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Vamvakas S,
    2. Bahner U and
    3. Heidland A
    : Cancer in end-stage renal disease: potential factors involved -editorial-. Am J Nephrol 18(2): 89-95, 1998. PMID: 9569948. DOI: 10.1159/000013314
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Maisonneuve P,
    2. Agodoa L,
    3. Gellert R,
    4. Stewart JH,
    5. Buccianti G,
    6. Lowenfels AB,
    7. Wolfe RA,
    8. Jones E,
    9. Disney AP,
    10. Briggs D,
    11. McCredie M and
    12. Boyle P
    : Cancer in patients on dialysis for endstage renal disease: an international collaborative study. Lancet 354(9173): 93-99, 1999. PMID: 10408483. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)06154-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cheung CY,
    2. Chan GC,
    3. Chan SK,
    4. Ng F,
    5. Lam MF,
    6. Wong SS,
    7. Chak WL,
    8. Chau KF,
    9. Lui SL,
    10. Lo WK and
    11. Tang SC
    : Cancer incidence and mortality in chronic dialysis population: a multicenter cohort study. Am J Nephrol 43(3): 153-159, 2016. PMID: 27064839. DOI: 10.1159/000445362
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Butler AM,
    2. Olshan AF,
    3. Kshirsagar AV,
    4. Edwards JK,
    5. Nielsen ME,
    6. Wheeler SB and
    7. Brookhart MA
    : Cancer incidence among US Medicare ESRD patients receiving hemodialysis, 1996-2009. Am J Kidney Dis 65(5): 763-772, 2015. PMID: 25662835. DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.12.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Ehdaie B,
    2. Stukenborg GJ and
    3. Theodorescu D
    : Renal transplant recipients and patients with end stage renal disease present with more advanced bladder cancer. J Urol 182(4): 1482-1487, 2009. PMID: 19683766. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.06.043
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Sato Y,
    2. Kondo T,
    3. Takagi T,
    4. Junpei I and
    5. Tanabe K
    : Treatment strategy for bladder cancer in patients on hemodialysis: a clinical review of 28 cases. Int Urol Nephrol 48(4): 503-509, 2016. PMID: 26759324. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-015-1199-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Yossepowitch O,
    2. Sagy I,
    3. Margel D and
    4. Baniel J
    : Urothelial carcinoma of the bladder in patients on hemodialysis: clinical characteristics and oncological outcomes. J Urol 187(4): 1215-1219, 2012. PMID: 22335874. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.11.098
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Johnson SC,
    2. Smith ZL,
    3. Golan S,
    4. Rodriguez JF 3rd.,
    5. Pearce SM,
    6. Smith ND and
    7. Steinberg GD
    : Perioperative and long-term outcomes after radical cystectomy in hemodialysis patients. Urol Oncol 36(5): 237.e19-237.e24, 2018. PMID: 29395954. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.12.024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Kader AK,
    2. Richards KA,
    3. Krane LS,
    4. Pettus JA,
    5. Smith JJ and
    6. Hemal AK
    : Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs. open radical cystectomy: comparison of complications and perioperative oncological outcomes in 200 patients. BJU Int 112(4): E290-E294, 2013. PMID: 23815802. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12167
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Parekh DJ,
    2. Messer J,
    3. Fitzgerald J,
    4. Ercole B and
    5. Svatek R
    : Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol 189(2): 474-479, 2013. PMID: 23017529. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.077
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bochner BH,
    2. Dalbagni G,
    3. Sjoberg DD,
    4. Silberstein J,
    5. Keren Paz GE,
    6. Donat SM,
    7. Coleman JA,
    8. Mathew S,
    9. Vickers A,
    10. Schnorr GC,
    11. Feuerstein MA,
    12. Rapkin B,
    13. Parra RO,
    14. Herr HW and
    15. Laudone VP
    : Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 67(6): 1042-1050, 2015. PMID: 25496767. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.043
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Parekh DJ,
    2. Reis IM,
    3. Castle EP,
    4. Gonzalgo ML,
    5. Woods ME,
    6. Svatek RS,
    7. Weizer AZ,
    8. Konety BR,
    9. Tollefson M,
    10. Krupski TL,
    11. Smith ND,
    12. Shabsigh A,
    13. Barocas DA,
    14. Quek ML,
    15. Dash A,
    16. Kibel AS,
    17. Shemanski L,
    18. Pruthi RS,
    19. Montgomery JS,
    20. Weight CJ,
    21. Sharp DS,
    22. Chang SS,
    23. Cookson MS,
    24. Gupta GN,
    25. Gorbonos A,
    26. Uchio EM,
    27. Skinner E,
    28. Venkatramani V,
    29. Soodana-Prakash N,
    30. Kendrick K,
    31. Smith JA Jr. and
    32. Thompson IM
    : Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 391(10139): 2525-2536, 2018. PMID: 29976469. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30996-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Wijburg CJ,
    2. Michels CTJ,
    3. Hannink G,
    4. Grutters JPC,
    5. Rovers MM,
    6. Alfred Witjes J and RACE Study Group
    : Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer patients: a multicentre comparative effectiveness study. Eur Urol 79(5): 609-618, 2021. PMID: 33446375. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.12.023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Dindo D,
    2. Demartines N and
    3. Clavien PA
    : Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2): 205-213, 2004. PMID: 15273542. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

In Vivo
Vol. 36, Issue 4
July-August 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on In Vivo.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assessment of Feasibility of Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy in Patients With Advanced Bladder Cancer Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis Therapy
(Your Name) has sent you a message from In Vivo
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the In Vivo web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
9 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Assessment of Feasibility of Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy in Patients With Advanced Bladder Cancer Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis Therapy
KOICHI NISHIMURA, HIROKI ISHIHARA, TSUNENORI KONDO, MAKOTO TOGUCHI, HIRONORI FUKUDA, HIDEKAZU TACHIBANA, DAISUKE TOKI, KAZUHIKO YOSHIDA, JUNPEI IIZUKA, KAZUNARI TANABE, TOSHIO TAKAGI
In Vivo Jul 2022, 36 (4) 1801-1806; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12895

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Assessment of Feasibility of Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy in Patients With Advanced Bladder Cancer Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis Therapy
KOICHI NISHIMURA, HIROKI ISHIHARA, TSUNENORI KONDO, MAKOTO TOGUCHI, HIRONORI FUKUDA, HIDEKAZU TACHIBANA, DAISUKE TOKI, KAZUHIKO YOSHIDA, JUNPEI IIZUKA, KAZUNARI TANABE, TOSHIO TAKAGI
In Vivo Jul 2022, 36 (4) 1801-1806; DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12895
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Response to Letter to the Editor from Finsterer: “Encephalitis Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Child With Chiari Malformation Type I”
  • Solitary Fibrous Tumor in the Retroperitoneal Space Arising from the Diaphragm
  • The Relationship Between Oxidative Stress, Selenium, and Cumulative Risk in Metabolic Syndrome
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • bladder cancer
  • robot-assisted radical cystectomy
  • maintenance hemodialysis therapy
In Vivo

© 2023 In Vivo

Powered by HighWire