Robotic surgery in treatment of retroperitoneal tumors. Comparative single center study

Abstract

Retroperitoneal tumors (RT)—group of benign and malignant mesenchymal tumors without any specific organ affiliation. Surgery is the only effective treatment. Robotic surgery is becoming popular and an effective approach in abdominal surgery. There is insufficient data about robotic treatment of retroperitoneal tumors. The comparative retrospective study of the results of surgical treatment of RTs between 2009 and 2019 was performed. 88 patients were surgically treated. The average age of patients was 58 (21;85). Clinical manifestations of RT were presented in 59 (67.1%) cases. RTs were asymptomatic in 29 patients (32.9%). The preoperative diagnosis was based on radiological diagnostic methods. Depending on the surgical approach, patients were divided into 3 groups. 35 patients were operated with robot-assisted (RA) method, 14 with laparoscopic (L), and 39 with traditional (TA) open approach. TA had the least operation time, but the most amount of blood loss. The median duration of postoperative drainage, morbidity rate, and postoperative length of stat were less after robotic approaches. The conversion rate was significantly less in robotic group in comparison with laparoscopy. There were no postoperative mortalities after each approach. The robot-assisted surgery could be successfully used in cases of retroperitoneal tumors. It’s feasible, safe, and comfortable for patients. The RA significantly reduces risks in cases when the tumor is located in hard-to-reach small spaces and/or attached to the main vessels and the size of the tumor is less than 10 cm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Rutkowski P, Lugowska I (2014) Follow-up in soft tissue sarcomas. Memo 7(2):92–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12254-014-0146-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Wee-Stekly WW, Mueller MD (2014) Retroperitoneal tumors in the pelvis: a diagnostic challenge in gynecology. Front Surg 1:49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2014.00049

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cochetti G, Barillaro F, Boni A, Del Zingaro M, Ettore M (2014) Robot assisted laparoscopic excision of a paraganglioma: new therapeutic approach. Int Braz J Urol 40(2):279–280. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.02.21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Oh JK, Yang MS, do Yoon H, Rha KH, Kim KN, Yi S, Ha Y (2014) Robotic resection of huge presacral tumors: case series and comparison with an open resection. J Spinal Disord Tech 27(4):151–154. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0b013e318299c5fd

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Berelavichus SV, Zotikov AE, Kriger AG, Panteleev VI, Kaldarov AR (2019) Two-stage combined treatment of leiomyosarcoma of iliac vein using robotic surgery. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech 5(4):586–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvscit.2019.08.005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Xia Leilei, Tianyuan Xu, Wang Xianjin, Qin Liang, Zhang Xiang et al (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic resection of large retroperitoneal paraganglioma—initial experience from China. Int J Med Robot 12(4):686–693. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Zhang T, Wang X, Zhao L et al (2016) Transperitoneal robotic resection of benign primary retroperitoneal tumors: can it be widely used? Int J Med Robot 12(3):561–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bindal V, Bhatia P, Kalhan S et al (2014) Robot-assisted excision of a large retroperitoneal schwannoma. JSLS 18(1):150–154. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680813x13654754534873

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Carchman E, Gorgun E (2015) Robotic-assisted resection of presacral sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma. Tech Coloproctol 19(3):177–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-015-1274-9

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Konstantinidis KM, Hiridis S, Karakitsos D (2011) Robotic-assisted surgical removal of pelvic schwannoma: a novel approach to a rare variant. J Med Robot 7(1):55–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tsvirkun VV (2000) Retroperitoneal tumors: diagnosis and surgical treatment. PhD dissertation. A.V. Vishnevsky Institute of Surgery, Moscow, Russia

  12. 12.

    Kriger AG, Berelavichus SV, Son AI, Gorin DS, Akhtanin EA, Kaldarov AR (2017) Surgical treatment of retroperitoneal masses. Pirogov Russ J Surg Khirurgiya 1:15–26. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia2017115-26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Kriger AG, Berelavichus SV, Son AI, Gorin DS, Ikramov RZ, Kalinin DV (2015) Robot-assisted operations for non-organ retroperitoneal tumors. Pirogov Russ J Surg Khirurgiya 5:24–28. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia2015524-28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lizars J (1824) Observations on extirpation of the ovaria, with cases. Edinb Med Surg J 22(81):247–256

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Sharpe LA, Van Oppen DJ (1995) Laparoscopic removal of a benign pelvic retroperitoneal dermoid cyst. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2(2):223–226

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Draaisma WA, van Hillegersberg R, Borel Rinkes IH et al (2006) Robot-assisted laparoscopic resection of a large paraganglioma: a case report. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 16(5):362–365. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sle.0000213717.19344.1b

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Son AI (2017) Robot-assisted operations for non-organ retroperitoneal tumors. MD dissertation. A.V. Vishnevsky Institute of Surgery, Moscow, Russia. https://www.vishnevskogo.ru/science/dissertation-council/ob-yavleniya-o-zashchite-dissertatsij/son-andrej-ilich

Download references

Acknowledgements

Chujko Marina, Dzyranova Elena.

Funding

This research did not have any funding.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

BS and KA conceived and designed the study, performed the analysis, wrote the paper, critically revised it, and approved of the version to be published. KA conceived and designed the study, collected the data, contributed the data, performed the analysis, wrote the paper, and approved of the version to be published. PV and RM performed the analysis, wrote the paper, and approved of the version to be published.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Kaldarov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berelavichus, S., Kriger, A., Kaldarov, A. et al. Robotic surgery in treatment of retroperitoneal tumors. Comparative single center study. J Robotic Surg (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01114-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Robot-assisted surgery
  • Robotic surgery
  • Extraperitoneal tumors
  • Retroperitoneal tumors
  • Mini-invasive surgery