Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Urol Oncol. 2018 Nov 13;37(3):209–218. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.09.009

Table 2.

– Summary of the main series evaluating the outcome of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection

Reference No. Pts. Clinical Stage PCRPLND RPLND Template Adjuvant Chemotherapy (%) Followup (months) Relapse rate (%) Death rate (%)
Laparoscopic RPLND
Cresswell etal. 2008[60] 87 I No Unilateral 24 84 (mean) 9 PS I; OPS II 0
Hyams et al. 2012[61] 91 I No Bilateral 23 38 (median) 8 PS I; OPS II with or without Cx 0
Steiner et al. 2013[63] 100 II Yes Unilatera1 and bilateral 2 59 (median) 1 Overall 0
Nicolai et al. 2017[62] 221 I No Unilateral 3 39 (median) 4 PS I; 27 PS II without Cx;0 PS II with Cx 0
Robotic assisted laparoscopic RPLND
Stepanian etal. 2016 [66] 19 i (H); II (6); III (2) No (16); Yes (3) Unilatera1 and bilateral 11 49 (median) 5 Overall 0
Pearce et al. 2017[65] 47 1 (42); IIA(5) No Unilateral 11 16 (median) 2 Overall 0

RPLND = retroperitoneal lymph node dissection; PC-RPLND = post chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection; PS = pathologic stage; Cx = chemotherapy