Dataset Information

Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).

Materials and methods

A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in October 2013. All relevant studies comparing RPN with OPN were included for further screening. A cumulative meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.

Results

Eight studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 3418 patients (757 patients in the robotic group and 2661 patients in the open group). Although RPN procedures had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 40.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.39-67.40; p?=?0.002), patients in this group benefited from a lower perioperative complication rate (19.3% for RPN and 29.5% for OPN; odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42-0.67; p<0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.78; 95%CI, -3.36 to -1.92; p<0.00001), less estimated blood loss(WMD: -106.83; 95%CI, -176.4 to -37.27; p?=?0.003). Transfusions, conversion to radical nephrectomy, ischemia time and estimated GFR change, margin status, and overall cost were comparable between the two techniques. The main limitation of the present meta-analysis is the non-randomization of all included studies.

Conclusions

RPN appears to be an efficient alternative to OPN with the advantages of a lower rate of perioperative complications, shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss. Nevertheless, high quality prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings.

SUBMITTER: Wu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3989253 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wu Zhenjie Z Li Mingmin M Liu Bing B Cai Chen C Ye Huamao H Lv Chen C Yang Qing Q Sheng Jing J Song Shangqing S Qu Le L Xiao Liang L Sun Yinghao Y Wang Linhui L

PloS one 20140416 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in October 2013. All relevant studies comparing RPN with OPN were included for further screening. A cumulative meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel p ...[more]

PMID: 24740259

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextThe resection technique used to excise tumor during robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) is of paramount importance in achieving optimal clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo provide an overview of the different resection techniques used during RPN, and a pooled analysis of comparative studies.Evidence acquisitionThe systematic review was conducted according to established principles (PROSPERO: CRD42022371640) on November 7, 2022. A population (P: adult patients undergoing RPN), intervention (I: enucleation), comparator (C: enucleoresection or wedge resection), outcome (O: outcome measurements of interest), and study design (S) framework was prespecified to assess study eligibility. Studies reporting a detailed description of resection techniques and/or evaluating the impact of resection technique on outcomes of surgery were included.Evidence synthesisResection techniques used during RPN can be broadly classified as resection (non-anatomic) or enucleation (anatomic). A standardized definition for these is lacking. Out of 20 studies retrieved, nine compared "standard" resection versus enucleation. A pooled analysis did not reveal significant differences in terms of operative time, ischemia time, blood loss, transfusions, or positive margins. Significant differences favoring enucleation were found for clamping management (odds ratio [OR] for renal artery clamping 3.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-10.88; p = 0.03), overall complications (OR for occurrence 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.87; p = 0.01) major complications (OR for occurrence 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.79; p = 0.009), length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.72 d, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.45; p < 0.001), and decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (WMD -2.64 ml/min, 95% CI -5.15 to -0.12; p = 0.04).ConclusionsThere is heterogeneity in the reporting of resection techniques used during RPN. The urological community must improve the quality of reporting and research produced accordingly. Positive margins are not specifically related to the resection technique. Focusing on studies comparing standard resection versus enucleation, advantages with tumor enucleation in terms of avoidance of artery clamping, overall/major complications, length of stay, and renal function were found. These data should be considered when planning the RPN resection strategy.Patient summaryWe reviewed studies on robotic surgery for partial kidney removal using different techniques to cut away the kidney tumor. We found that a technique called "enucleation" was associated with similar cancer control outcomes in comparison to the standard technique and had fewer complications, better kidney function after surgery, and a shorter hospital stay.

Project description:Introduction: Cryoablation has been considered as the most efficacious ablative alternative to partial nephrectomy (PN) for selected patients. Our objective is to assess the existing evidence relating to the safety and efficacy of cryoablation compared with PN for clinical T1 renal masses. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search of PMC, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies containing comparison of cryoablation and PN. By utilizing those included studies, a systematic review and cumulative meta-analyses were performed to assess the safety and efficacy between cryoablation and PN for T1 renal masses. Results: 17 retrospective studies providing available data were included in our study. Significant differences were found about all oncological variables including all-cause death, cancer-specific death, metastasis and local-recurrence (p < 0.001, p = 0.03, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively) between the PN group and the cryoablation group. The mean difference between two groups for percent estimated glomerular filtration rate decrease and creatinine increase was -4.84 and 0.15 respectively (p < 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). The incidences of overall and postoperative complications in the PN group were significantly higher than that in the cryoablation group (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), but the result about intraoperative complications didn't show a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.53). Conclusions: Comparing with PN, cryoablation for clinical T1 renal tumors is associated with poorer oncological outcomes, but the existing disadvantages are accompanied by lower rate of overall and postoperative complications and superior renal functional preservation. For patients with imperative indications for nephron-sparing surgery who can't risk more invasive PN, cryoablation could be an attractive option. Owing to the inherent limitations of eligible studies, conclusions drawn from our meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and be confirmed further with well-designed randomized controlled trials with extensive follow-up length.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Minimally invasive surgery in urology has grown considerably in application since its initial description in the early 1990s. Herein, we present the protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing open versus robotic urological oncological surgery for various clinically relevant outcomes, as well as to assess their comparative penetrance over the past 20 years (2000-2020). METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will document the penetrance of robotic versus open surgery in the urological oncological field using a national database.Second, we will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published full-text English and non-English language articles from Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science search engines on surgical treatment of localised prostate, bladder, kidney and testis cancer published between 1st January 2000 to 10th January 2020. We will focus on the highest-volume urological oncological surgeries, namely, radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy, partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Study inclusion criteria will comprise clinical trials and prospective and retrospective studies (cohort or case-control series) comparing robotic versus open surgery. Exclusion criteria will comprise meta-analyses, multiple papers with overalapping study-periods, studies analysing national databases and case series describing only one approach (robotic or open). Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed by the appropriate Cochrane risk of bias tool. Principal outcomes assessed will include perioperative, functional, oncological survival and financial outcomes of open versus robotic uro-oncological surgery. Sensitivity analyses will be performed to correlate outcomes of interest with key baseline characteristics and surrogates of surgical expertise. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis will provide rigorous, consolidated information on contemporary outcomes and trends of open versus robotic urological oncological surgery based on all the available literature. These aggregate data will help physicians better advise patients seeking surgical care for urological cancers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017064958.

Project description:BackgroundMinimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) and focal therapy (FT) are popular trends for small renal masses (SRMs). However, there is currently no systematic comparison between MIPN and FT of SRMs. Therefore, we systematically study the perioperative, renal functional, and oncologic outcomes of MIPN and FT in SRMs.MethodsWe have searched the Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed for articles between MIPN (robot-assisted partial nephrectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy) and FT {radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), cryoablation (CA), irreversible electroporation, non-thermal [irreversible electroporation (IRE)] ablation, and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT)}. We calculated pooled mean difference (MD), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (CRD42021260787).ResultsA total of 26 articles (n = 4,420) were included in the study. Compared with MIPN, the operating time (OP) of FT had significantly lower (SMD, -1.20; CI, -1.77 to -0.63; I2 = 97.6%, P < 0.0001), estimated blood loss (EBL) of FT had significantly less (SMD, -1.20; CI, -1.77 to -0.63; I2 = 97.6%, P < 0.0001), length of stay (LOS) had shorter (SMD, -0.90; CI, -1.26 to -0.53; I2 = 92.2%, P < 0.0001), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of FT was significantly lower decrease (SMD, -0.90; CI, -1.26 to -0.53; I2 = 92.2%, P < 0.0001). However, FT possessed lower risk in minor complications (Clavien 1-2) (OR, 0.69; CI, 0.45 to 1.07; I2 = 47%, P = 0.023) and overall complications (OR, 0.71; CI, 0.51 to 0.99; I2 = 49.2%, P = 0.008). Finally, there are no obvious difference between FT and MIPN in local recurrence, distant metastasis, and major complications (P > 0.05).ConclusionFT has more advantages in protecting kidney function, reducing bleeding, shortening operating time, and shortening the length of stay. There is no difference in local recurrence, distant metastasis, and major complications. For the minimally invasive era, we need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of all aspects to make comprehensive choices.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier PROSPERO (CRD42021260787).

Dataset Information

Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets