Background Concerns remain whether robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compromises survival because of inadequate oncologic resection or alteration of recurrence patterns. Objective To describe recurrence patterns following open radical cystectomy (ORC) and RARC. Design, setting, and participants Retrospective review of 383 consecutive patients who underwent ORC (n = 120) or RARC (n = 263) at an academic institution from July 2001 to February 2014. Intervention ORC and RARC. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis Recurrence-free survival estimates were illustrated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Recurrence patterns (local vs distant and anatomic locations) within 2 yr of surgery were tabulated. Cox regression models were built to evaluate the effect of surgical technique on the risk of recurrence. Results and limitations The median follow-up time for patients without recurrence was 30 mo (interquartile range [IQR] 5–72) for ORC and 23 mo (IQR 9–48) for RARC (p = 0.6). Within 2 yr of surgery, there was no large difference in the number of local recurrences between ORC and RARC patients (15/65 [23%] vs 24/136 [18%]), and the distribution of local recurrences was similar between the two groups. Similarly, the number of distant recurrences did not differ between the groups (26/73 [36%] vs 43/147 [29%]). However, there were distinct patterns of distant recurrence. Extrapelvic lymph node locations were more frequent for RARC than ORC (10/43 [23%] vs 4/26 [15%]). Furthermore, peritoneal carcinomatosis was found in 9/43 (21%) RARC patients compared to 2/26 (8%) ORC patients. In multivariable analyses, RARC was not a predictor of recurrence. Limitations of the study include selection bias and a limited sample size. Conclusions Within limitations, we found that RARC is not an independent predictor of recurrence after surgery. Interestingly, extrapelvic lymph node locations and peritoneal carcinomatosis were more frequent in RARC than in ORC patients. Further validation is warranted to better understand the oncologic implications of RARC. Patient summary In this study, the locations of bladder cancer recurrences following conventional and robotic techniques for removal of the bladder are described. Although the numbers are small, the results show that the distribution of distant recurrences differs between the two techniques.
IMPORTANCEOveractive bladder is a condition that may be ideally suited for the use of telemedicine because initial treatment options are behavioral modification and pharmacotherapy.OBJECTIVEWe sought to evaluate if there was an overall difference in patient follow-up rates between telemedicine and in-person visits.STUDY DESIGNNew patients presenting with overactive bladder from July 2020 to March 2021 were randomized into telemedicine and in-person visits groups. A prospective database was maintained to compare follow-up rates, satisfaction rates, and time commitment.RESULTSForty-eight patients were randomized, 23 to the telemedicine group and 25 to the in-person visits group. There was no significant difference in follow-up rates between the telemedicine and in-person follow-up groups at 30 days (39% vs 28%, P = 0.41), 60-days (65% vs 56% P = 0.51) or 90 days (78% vs 60%, P = 0.17). There was no significant difference in satisfaction rates between the 2 groups. There was a significant difference between the average telemedicine visit time and in-person visit time (12.1 ± 6.9 minutes vs 22.8 ± 17.1 minutes; P = 0.02). For in-person visits, the average travel time was 49 minutes (interquartile range, 10–90 minutes) and average miles traveled was 22.1 miles (interquartile range, 10–70 miles).CONCLUSIONSThere was no significant difference in follow-up or satisfaction rates between telemedicine and in-person visits. Telemedicine visits took half the length of time compared with in-person visits. On average, patients in the telemedicine group saved approximately 1 hour per follow-up visit. Telemedicine visits save both the health care provider and patient significant amounts of time without sacrificing patient satisfaction and follow-up rates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.