CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT06253091Updated Feb 20, 2024

Comparison of the Application of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Pathways in Radical Cystectomy

An interventional study of robit-assist extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy in Bladder Cancer, sponsored by The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University. Recruiting at 1 site in China. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-02-20.

Sponsored by The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Oct 2024, 1 year 11 months ago, but the record still lists the study as recruiting.
  • Started Feb 2024; still recruiting 2 years 8 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
50
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 75 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Traditional radical cystectomy (RC) is performed transabdominal. However, it often has high postoperative complications. There have been studies on extraperitoneal approach to reduce postoperative complications. Investigators divided participants underwent robot-assisted radical cystectomy into two groups (1:1) . One group of participants transabdominal, the other group extraperitoneal. The incidence of complications and PFS/OS at 3, and 5 years were compared.

Read the detailed description

Bladder cancer is highly prevalent worldwide and approximately 75% of these are non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). For high-risk NMIBC and MIBC, radical cystectomy (RC) is also the best treatment option.

The traditional transperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy prolapse of abdominal organs into the pelvic cavity can lead to angulation of the intestinal tract, causing obstruction. Some studies have demonstrated that the extraperitoneal route can effectively reduce these complications Currently, robot-assisted surgery technology is widely utilized in urology. Studies have demonstrated that robot-assisted total extraperitoneal cystectomy and urinary diversion are less likely to disrupt abdominal organs, particularly the intestines. Identifying and locating membrane structures and layers with anatomical significance is crucial for navigating the correct anatomic space during the operation. The using of 3D laparoscopy or a robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical cystectomy aligns more closely with the 3D membrane anatomic concept. Furthermore, for younger patients,robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical cystectomy is more favorable for preserving reproductive function. For elderly patients, it is considered more safer.

Consequently, we aim to investigate whether robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical cystectomy is more advantageous for patients with MIBC or high-risk NMIBC.

02

Conditions studied

  • Bladder Cancer

Keywords

  • radical cystectomy
03

In context

Urinary Bladder Neoplasms

1,616 studies on the registry are indexed under Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; 421 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 50 is below the median of 60 across 1,163 interventional studies indexed under Urinary Bladder Neoplasms.

Browse Urinary Bladder Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University is the lead sponsor of 543 studies on the registry; 301 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 75 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. Researchers evaluated patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer or high-risk non-muscular invasive bladder cancer who needed radical cystectomy.
  2. Willing to accept the operation and meet the surgical index: a) Absolute count of neutrophils≥1.5x109/L; b) Platelets≥100×109/L; c) Hemoglobin≥90g/L; d) International standardized ratio or activationPartial thrombin time≤1.5 Upper limit of normal value (ULN); e) calculated creatinine clearance rate≥1 ml/s; f) Total serum bilirubin≤1.5×ULN; g) AST, ALT and alkaline phosphatase≤2.5×ULN; h) Cardiopulmonary function indicates that it can tolerate major abdominal surgery;
  3. None of the pastHistory of abdominal surgery;
  4. 18 to 75 years old;
  5. ECOG physical state 0 or 1;
  6. voluntarily participate in this experiment, be able to provide a written version of the informed consent, and be able to understand and agree to comply with the requirements of this study and the evaluation schedule;

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Patients who refuse to receive radical cystectomy
  2. Researchers evaluate patients who are unable to tolerate radical cystectomy;
  3. There is a abdominal history of surgery;
  4. Have had a large-scale operation or major trauma within 28 days before joining the group;
  5. Have been vaccinated with live vaccine within 28 days before joining the group;
  6. Severe chronic or active infection that requires systemic anti-bacterial, antifungal or antiviral treatment within 14 days before joining the group;
  7. Participating in the rest of the clinical research.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
50 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • No intervention
    robit-assist transperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy

    robit-assist radical cystectomy was performed transperitoneal

  • Experimental
    robit-assist extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy

    robit-assist radical cystectomy was performed extraperitoneal

    Procedure: robit-assist extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy

Interventions

  • Procedurerobit-assist extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy

    robit-assist laparoscopic radical cystectomy was performed extraperitoneal

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Complication rate

    Complication rate after surgery

    Time frame: through study completion, an average of 1 month, 3 month and 1 year

Secondary outcomes

  1. OS

    Overall Survival

    Time frame: 5 years after surgery

  2. PFS

    progression-free survival

    Time frame: 5 years after surgery

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • The first affiliated hospital of Nanjing Medical University
    Nanjing, Jiangsu 210000, China
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Lobo N, Afferi L, Moschini M, Mostafid H, Porten S, Psutka SP, Gupta S, Smith AB, Williams SB, Lotan Y. Epidemiology, Screening, and Prevention of Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022 Dec;5(6):628-639. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2022.10.003. Epub 2022 Nov 1. PubMed 36333236 ↗
  • Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. Epub 2021 Feb 4. PubMed 33538338 ↗
  • Knowles MA, Hurst CD. Molecular biology of bladder cancer: new insights into pathogenesis and clinical diversity. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015 Jan;15(1):25-41. doi: 10.1038/nrc3817. PubMed 25533674 ↗
  • Witjes JA, Bruins HM, Cathomas R, Comperat EM, Cowan NC, Gakis G, Hernandez V, Linares Espinos E, Lorch A, Neuzillet Y, Rouanne M, Thalmann GN, Veskimae E, Ribal MJ, van der Heijden AG. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Summary of the 2020 Guidelines. Eur Urol. 2021 Jan;79(1):82-104. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.03.055. Epub 2020 Apr 29. PubMed 32360052 ↗
  • Haeuser L, Marchese M, Noldus J, Kibel AS, Carvalho F, Preston MA, Cooper Z, Trinh QD, Mossanen M. Association between Operative Time and Short-Term Radical Cystectomy Complications. Urol Int. 2023;107(3):273-279. doi: 10.1159/000522141. Epub 2022 Mar 18. PubMed 35306500 ↗
  • Parra RO, Andrus CH, Jones JP, Boullier JA. Laparoscopic cystectomy: initial report on a new treatment for the retained bladder. J Urol. 1992 Oct;148(4):1140-4. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)36843-x. PubMed 1404624 ↗
  • Cao Q, Li P, Yang X, Qian J, Wang Z, Lu Q, Gu M. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy with pelvic re-peritonealization: the technique and initial clinical outcomes. BMC Urol. 2018 Dec 12;18(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12894-018-0424-6. PubMed 30541538 ↗
  • Kulkarni JN, Gulla RI, Tongaonkar HB, Kashyapi BD, Rajyaguru KB. Radical cystoprostatectomy: an extraperitoneal retrograde approach. J Urol. 1999 Feb;161(2):545-8. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5347(01)61946-3. PubMed 9915445 ↗
  • Zhu YP, Ye DW, Yao XD, Zhang SL, Dai B, Shen YJ, Wang CF. Defining good candidates for extraperitoneal cystectomy: results from random peritoneum biopsies of 136 cases. Urology. 2013 Apr;81(4):820-4. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.11.057. Epub 2013 Feb 20. PubMed 23434097 ↗
  • Park DS, Gong IH, Choi DK, Hwang JH, Kang MH, Oh JJ. A feasibility study of peritoneum preservation in radical cystectomy with extraperitonealization of orthotopic neobladder for invasive high-grade bladder cancer: a preliminary analysis. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014 Jun;46(6):1107-13. doi: 10.1007/s11255-013-0632-7. Epub 2013 Dec 20. PubMed 24356919 ↗
  • De Nunzio C, Cicione A, Leonardo F, Rondoni M, Franco G, Cantiani A, Tubaro A, Leonardo C. Extraperitoneal radical cystectomy and ureterocutaneostomy in octogenarians. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011 Sep;43(3):663-7. doi: 10.1007/s11255-010-9876-7. Epub 2010 Nov 26. PubMed 21110093 ↗
  • Jentzmik F, Schostak M, Stephan C, Baumunk D, Lingnau A, Weikert S, Lein M, Miller K, Schrader M. Extraperitoneal radical cystectomy with extraperitonealization of the ileal neobladder: a comparison to the transperitoneal technique. World J Urol. 2010 Aug;28(4):457-63. doi: 10.1007/s00345-009-0476-z. Epub 2009 Sep 24. PubMed 19777243 ↗
  • Feng L, Song J, Wu M, Tian Y, Zhang D. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal laparoscopic radical cystectomy for selected elderly bladder cancer patients: a single center experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2016 Jul-Aug;42(4):655-62. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0608. PubMed 27564274 ↗
  • Refaai K, Sharafeldin MA, Elabbady A, Sameh W, Thurairaja R, Nair R, Dasgupta P, Khan MS, Mohamed E. Perioperative Outcomes of Open Retrograde Extraperitoneal Versus Intracorporeal Robot-assisted Radical Cystoprostatectomy in Men: A Dual-center Comparative Study. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2020 Jun;18(3):e315-e323. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2019.12.006. Epub 2019 Dec 14. PubMed 31911120 ↗
  • Kulkarni JN, Agarwal H. Transperitoneal vs. extraperitoneal radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: A retrospective study. Int Braz J Urol. 2018 Mar-Apr;44(2):296-303. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2017.0441. PubMed 29219280 ↗
  • Zhao J, Zeng S, Zhang Z, Zhou T, Yang B, Song R, Sun Y, Xu C. Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy Versus Extraperitoneal Radical Cystectomy: Is the Extraperitoneal Technique Rewarding? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2015 Aug;13(4):e271-e277. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.01.006. Epub 2015 Jan 21. PubMed 25743207 ↗
  • Zhu G, Zhang Z, Zhao K, Yin X, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Li C, Sui Y, Li X, Yang H, Xing N, Wang K. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy with pelvic lymph node dissection and ileal orthotopic neobladder by a total extraperitoneal approach: Our initial technique and short-term outcomes. Investig Clin Urol. 2022 Sep;63(5):523-530. doi: 10.4111/icu.20220156. PubMed 36067997 ↗
  • Soleimani M, Moradkhani E, Masoumi N, Gholivandan J. Extra-Peritoneal versus Trans-Peritoneal Open Radical Cystectomy - Comparison of Two Techniques in Early Post-Operative Complications. Urol J. 2021 Nov 7;18(5):519-524. doi: 10.22037/uj.v16i7.6147. PubMed 32827149 ↗
  • Yang H, Zhang Z, Zhao K, Zhang Y, Yin X, Zhu G, Lin C, Liu C, Wang Z, Sui Y, Li X, Li C, Wang K. Extraperitoneal Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy With Preservation of Fertility for the Treatment of Ewing Sarcoma: The First Report of a Reliable Surgical Method. Urology. 2022 Jan;159:241-246. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2021.09.024. Epub 2021 Oct 13. PubMed 34653432 ↗
  • Malinaric R, Mantica G, Balzarini F, Terrone C, Maffezzini M. Extraperitoneal cystectomy with ureterocutaneostomy derivation in fragile patients - should it be performed more often? Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2022 Jun 29;94(2):144-149. doi: 10.4081/aiua.2022.2.144. PubMed 35775336 ↗
  • Li Z, Zhang Z, Ma H, Yao K, Qin Z, Han H, Ye Y, Li Y, Dong P, Jiang L, Tian L, Liu Z, Zhou F. Extraperitonealization of ileal conduit reduces parastomal hernia after cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion. Urol Oncol. 2022 Apr;40(4):162.e17-162.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.11.022. Epub 2021 Dec 15. PubMed 34920945 ↗
  • Kulkarni JN, Rizvi SJ, Acharya UP, Kumar KS, Tiwari P. Gynecologic-tract sparing extra peritoneal retrograde radical cystectomy with neobladder. Int Braz J Urol. 2008 Mar-Apr;34(2):180-7; discussion 187-90. doi: 10.1590/s1677-55382008000200008. PubMed 18462516 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Feb 20, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06253091
Lead sponsor
The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 12, 2024
Start date
Feb 1, 2024
Primary completion
Oct 30, 2024 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 30, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Feb 20, 2024

Study contacts

Yang Xiao Yang, MD
Contact
yangxiao2915@163.com
+86 13951813528
bai rongjie
Contact
bai_rongjie@163.com
+86 15151211913
Lv qiang, PhD
study chair · The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion