Jin-Qiu Tang1, Zhihong Zhao2, Yiwen Liang3, Guixiang Liao4. 1. Department of nephrology and urology, Guangzhou Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine, Guangzhou, China. 2. Department of Nephrology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medicine Centre, Jinan University, China. 3. Department of Urology People's Hospital of Guigang, Guigang, Guangxi, China. 4. Department of Oncology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medicine Centre, Jinan University, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasing annually for treatment of bladder cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of RARC and open radical cystectomy (ORC) for bladder cancer. METHODS: Our meta-analysis searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the two techniques. RESULTS: Four RCT studies were identified, including 239 cases. Our studies indicated that RARC was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 69.69, 95% CI:17.25 to122.12; P= 0.009), lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -299.83, 95% CI:-414.66to -184.99; P<0.00001). The two groups had no significant difference in overall perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, lymph node yield and positive surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: RARC is mini-invasive alternative to ORC for bladder cancer. The advantage of RARC was reduced estimated blood loss. More studies are needed to compare the two techniques.
BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasing annually for treatment of bladder cancer. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of RARC and open radical cystectomy (ORC) for bladder cancer. METHODS: Our meta-analysis searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the two techniques. RESULTS: Four RCT studies were identified, including 239 cases. Our studies indicated that RARC was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 69.69, 95% CI:17.25 to122.12; P= 0.009), lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -299.83, 95% CI:-414.66to -184.99; P<0.00001). The two groups had no significant difference in overall perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, lymph node yield and positive surgical margins. CONCLUSIONS: RARC is mini-invasive alternative to ORC for bladder cancer. The advantage of RARC was reduced estimated blood loss. More studies are needed to compare the two techniques.