Dataset Information

Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with open radical cystectomy (ORC).

Methods

A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in April 2014. All relevant studies comparing RARC with ORC were included for further screening. A pooled meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.

Results

Nineteen studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 1779 patients (787 patients in the RARC group and 992 patients in the ORC group). Although RARC was associated with longer operative time (p <0.0001), patients in this group might benefit from significantly lower overall perioperative complication rates within 30 days and 90 days (p = 0.005 and 0.0002, respectively), more lymph node yields (p = 0.009), less estimated blood loss (p <0.00001), lower need for perioperative and intraoperative transfusions (p <0.0001 and <0.0001, respectively), and shorter postoperative length of stay (p = 0.0002). There was no difference between two groups regarding positive surgical margin rates (p = 0.19).

Conclusions

RARC appears to be an efficient alternative to ORC with advantages of less perioperative complications, more lymph node yields, less estimated blood loss, lower need for transfusions, and shorter postoperative length of stay. Further studies should be performed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between RARC and ORC.

SUBMITTER: Xia L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4380496 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xia Leilei L Wang Xianjin X Xu Tianyuan T Zhang Xiaohua X Zhu Zhaowei Z Qin Liang L Zhang Xiang X Fang Chen C Zhang Minguang M Zhong Shan S Shen Zhoujun Z

PloS one 20150331 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with open radical cystectomy (ORC).<h4>Methods</h4>A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in April 2014. All relevant studies comparing RARC with ORC were included for further screening. A pooled meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.<h4>Resul ...[more]

PMID: 25825873

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveMore recently laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) has increasingly been an attractive alternative to open radical cystectomy (ORC) and many centers have reported their early experiences in the treatment of bladder cancer. Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LRC compared with ORC in the treatment of bladder cancer.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was performed up to Mar 1, 2013. Outcomes of interest assessing the two techniques included demographic and clinical baseline characteristics, perioperative, pathologic and oncological variables, and post-op neobladder function and complications.ResultsSixteen eligible trials evaluating LRC vs ORC were identified including seven prospective and nine retrospective studies. Although LRC was associated with longer operative time (p<0.001), patients might benefit from significantly fewer overall complications (p<0.001), less blood loss (p<0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p<0.001), less need of blood transfusion (p<0.001), less narcotic analgesic requirement (p<0.001), shorter time to ambulation (p = 0.03), shorter time to regular diet (p<0.001), fewer positive surgical margins (p = 0.006), fewer positive lymph node (p = 0.05), lower distant metastasis rate (p = 0.05) and fewer death (p = 0.004). There was no significant difference in other demographic parameters except for a lower ASA score (p = 0.01) in LRC while post-op neobladder function were similar between the two groups.ConclusionsOur data suggest that LRC appears to be a safe, feasible and minimally invasive alternative to ORC with reliable perioperative safety, pathologic & oncologic efficacy, comparable post-op neobladder function and fewer complications. Because of the inherent limitations of the included studies, further large sample prospective, multi-centric, long-term follow-up studies and randomized control trials should be undertaken to confirm our findings.

Project description:BackgroundThe number of robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) procedures is increasing despite the lack of Level I evidence showing any advantages over open radical cystectomy (ORC). However, several systematic reviews with meta-analyses including non-randomised studies, suggest an overall benefit for RARC compared to ORC. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the perioperative morbidity and efficacy of RARC compared to ORC in patients with bladder cancer.MethodsLiterature searches of Medline/Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and clinicaltrials.gov databases up to 10th March 2016 were performed. The inclusion criteria for eligible studies were RCTs which compared perioperative outcomes of ORC and RARC for bladder cancer. Primary objective was perioperative and histopathological outcomes of RARC versus ORC while the secondary objective was quality of life assessment (QoL), oncological outcomes and cost analysis.ResultsFour RCTs (from 5 articles) met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 239 patients all with extracorporeal urinary diversion. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics of RARC and ORC patients were evenly matched. There was no significant difference between groups in perioperative morbidity, length of stay, positive surgical margin, lymph node yield and positive lymph node status. RARC group had significantly lower estimated blood loss (p<0.001) and wound complications (p = 0.03) but required significantly longer operating time (p<0.001). QoL was not measured uniformly across trials and cost analysis was reported in one RCTs. A test for heterogeneity did highlight differences across operating time of trials suggesting that surgeon experience may influence outcomes.ConclusionsThis study does not provide evidence to support a benefit for RARC compared to ORC. These results may not have inference for RARC with intracorporeal urinary diversion. Well-designed trials with appropriate endpoints conducted by equally experienced ORC and RARC surgeons will be needed to address this.

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.

Dataset Information

Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets