Evaluation of laparoscopic approach in radical cystectomy from implementation to consolidation: Internal validation. / Evaluación del abordaje laparoscópico en la cistectomía radical desde la implantación hasta su consolidación: validación interna.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The AEU Guidelines of 2017 consider laparoscopic and robot-assisted approaches as investigational procedures. The surgical learning curve is defined as the minimum number of cases that a surgeon has to perform in order to reproduce a technique considered as standard. The aim of this study is to analyze, within our department, the implementation of a laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) program compared with a well consolidated and standardized open radical cystectomy (ORC) program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of two cystectomy groups LRC (n=196) (20062016) vs. ORC (n=96) (2003-2005). Comparison of the evolution over time of the following parameters operative time, blood transfusion rates, resection margins, postoperative complications, hospital stay and recurrence. Three time periods have been defined for LRC implementation (2006-09) (LRC-I), development (2010-14) (LRC-D) and consolidation (2015-16) (LRC-C); comparing each of them with the control group (ORC). The chi-square test was used for the comparison of the qualitative variables and the Anova test for the numerical ones. RESULTS: When compared to ORC, LRC presented longer operative times in LRC-I and LRC-D periods. We observed a trend toward shorter operative time than ORC in the consolidation period (LRC-C). LRC also presented lower intraoperative transfusion rates in all periods and lower postoperative rates in CRL-D and CRL-C. Overall complications in LRC-D and LRC-C were lower in LRC, having fewer major complications (Clavien≥3) in the 3 periods. A decrease in mortality and hospital stay after the LRC-I phase was also observed. These results were consolidated during the two last periods of the study. We have not observed significant differences between ORC and LRC when comparing surgical margins and recurrence rates, neither in the total series, nor in the comparison between the different periods. These results endorse the oncologic safety of LRC from the beginning of the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: When compared to ORC, LRC improves perioperative transfusion rates, complications and hospital stay from its implementation period, maintaining oncological safety. On the contrary, longer operative times during implementation and development were observed. However, in our series, we observed a trend toward shorter operative times than ORC approach in the consolidation period. We have validated the laparoscopic approach for radical cystectomy in our service.