Dataset Information

Comparison of Outcomes Between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis Based on Comparative Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To compare perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes between transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN).

Methods

A literature searching of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed in August, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% con?dence intervals (CIs) were estimated using ?xed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plots. Only comparative studies with matched design or similar baseline characteristics were included.

Results

Eleven studies embracing 2,984 patients were included. There was no signi?cant difference between the two groups regarding conversion to open (P = 0.44) or radical (P = 0.31) surgery, all complications (P = 0.06), major complications (P = 0.07), warm ischemia time (P = 0.73), positive surgical margin (P = 0.87), decline in eGFR (P = 0.42), CKD upstaging (P = 0.72), and total recurrence (P = 0.66). Patients undergoing TRPN had a significant higher minor complications (P = 0.04; OR: 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.91), longer operative time (P < 0.001; WMD: 21.68; 95% CI, 11.61 to 31.76), more estimated blood loss (EBL, P = 0.002; WMD: 40.94; 95% CI, 14.87 to 67.01), longer length of hospital stay (LOS, P < 0.001; WMD: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.37). No obvious publication bias was identified.

Conclusion

RRPN is more favorable than TRPN in terms of less minor complications, shorter operative time, less EBL, and shorter LOS. Methodological limitations of the included studies should be considered while interpreting these results.

SUBMITTER: Zhu D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7819878 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Outcomes Between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis Based on Comparative Studies.

Zhu Daqing D Shao Xue X Guo Gang G Zhang Nandong N Shi Taoping T Wang Yi Y Gu Liangyou L

Frontiers in oncology 20210108

<h4>Background</h4>To compare perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes between transperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (TRPN) and retroperitoneal robotic partial nephrectomy (RRPN).<h4>Methods</h4>A literature searching of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed in August, 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% conﬁdence intervals (CIs) were estimated using ﬁxed-effect or random-effect model. Publication bias was evalua ...[more]

PMID: 33489891

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAim of this study was to evaluate and compare perioperative outcomes of transperitoneal (TP) and retroperitoneal (TR) approaches in a multi-institutional cohort of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MI-PN).Material and methodsAll consecutive patients undergone MI-PN for clinical T1 renal tumors at 26 Italian centers (RECORd2 project) between 01/2013 and 12/2016 were evaluated, collecting the pre-, intra-, and postoperative data. The patients were then stratified according to the surgical approach, TP or RP. A 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching was performed to obtain homogeneous cohorts, considering the age, gender, baseline eGFR, surgical indication, clinical diameter, and PADUA score.Results1669 patients treated with MI-PN were included in the study, 1256 and 413 undergoing TP and RP, respectively. After 1:1 PS matching according to the surgical access, 413 patients were selected from TP group to be compared with the 413 RP patients. Concerning intraoperative variables, no differences were found between the two groups in terms of surgical approach (lap/robot), extirpative technique (enucleation vs standard PN), hilar clamping, and ischemia time. Conversely, the TP group recorded a shorter median operative time in comparison with the RP group (115 vs 150 min), with a higher occurrence of intraoperative overall, 21 (5.0%) vs 9 (2.1%); p = 0.03, and surgical complications, 18 (4.3%) vs 7 (1.7%); p = 0.04. Concerning postoperative variables, the two groups resulted comparable in terms of complications, positive surgical margins and renal function, even if the RP group recorded a shorter median drainage duration and hospital length of stay (3 vs 2 for both variables), p < 0.0001.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that both TP and RP are feasible approaches when performing MI-PN, irrespectively from tumor location or surgical complexity. Notwithstanding longer operative times, RP seems to have a slighter intraoperative complication rate with earlier postoperative recovery when compared with TP.

Project description:BackgroundRobotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) has been gaining acceptance among paediatric urologists.ObjectiveTo compare surgical variables and clinical outcomes, including complications and success rate, with RALP using the transperitoneal (T-RALP) and retroperitoneal (R-RALP) approaches.Design setting and participantsWe performed a multicentre, prospective, cohort study (NCT03274050) between November 2016 and October 2021 in three paediatric urology teaching centres (transperitoneal approach, n = 2; retroperitoneal approach, n = 1). The diagnosis of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) was confirmed by renal ultrasound and mercaptoacetyltriglycine-3 renal scan or uro-magnetic resonance imaging with functional evaluation. The exclusion criteria were children <2 yr old, persistent UPJO after failed pyeloplasty, and horseshoe and ectopic kidney.InterventionWe performed dismembered pyeloplasty using running monofilament 6-0 absorbable suture.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisWe assessed intra- and postoperative morbidity (primary outcome) and success (secondary outcome). Data were expressed as medians and interquartile range (25th and 75th percentiles) for quantitative variables, and analysed comparatively.Results and limitationsWe operated on 106 children (T-RALP, n = 53; R-RALP, n = 53). Preoperative data were comparable between groups (median age 9.1 [6.2-11.2] yr; median weight 26.8 [21-40] kg). Set-up time (10 vs 31 min), anastomotic time (49 vs 73 min), and console time (97 vs 153 min) were significantly shorter with T-RALP than with R-RALP (p < 0.001). No intraoperative complications occurred. No conversion to open surgery was necessary. The median hospital stay was longer after T-RALP (2 d) than after R-RALP (1 d; p < 0.001). Overall, postoperative complication rates were similar. No failure had occurred at the mean follow-up of 25.4 (15.1-34.7) mo.ConclusionsIn selected children, RALP is safe and effective using either the transperitoneal or the retroperitoneal approach, with a shorter hospital stay after R-RALP.Patient summaryIn our multicentre, prospective study, we compared the results and complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) using the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. We found that RALP is safe and effective using either approach, with a shorter hospital stay after R-RALP.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Outcomes Between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis Based on Comparative Studies.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Comparison of Outcomes Between Transperitoneal and Retroperitoneal Robotic Partial Nephrectomy: A Meta-Analysis Based on Comparative Studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure