OBJECTIVE: To analyse the current difference between dismembered robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in the treatment of pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction as of 26 June 2017, focusing on operating time, length of hospital stay, complication rate, and success rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline and Embase databases, consulted experts, reviewed reference lists, used the 'related articles' PubMed feature, and reviewed scientific meeting abstracts for eligible articles published between 1993 and 26 June 2017. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess study quality. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding patient age, single or multisurgeon experience, presence of complex renal anatomy, study quality, Clavien-Dindo grades, and length of follow-up. RESULTS: From 4101 identified articles, 17 studies meeting our eligibility criteria were included for data extraction. All were observational studies, with 10 deemed to be of low quality. Meta-analysis showed that RAP resulted in a 27-min shorter operating time (weighted mean difference [WMD] -26.71 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -44.42 to -9.00; P = 0.003) and a 1.2-day shorter length of hospital stay (WMD -1.21 days, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.57; P = 0.003). The quality of evidence for these outcomes was rated as very low. Significant heterogeneity was found when analysing operating time (P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.001), which could not be fully explained through subgroup analyses. We also identified other potentially significant sources of bias for which we could not adjust our analysis. RAP was also associated with a lower complication rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.84; P = 0.005) and higher success rate (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.88; P = 0.008); however, whether statistical advantages for these two outcomes translated into clinically significant advantages was unclear. The quality of evidence for these outcomes was rated as low. CONCLUSION: For patients with PUJ obstruction, our meta-analyses show that RAP is advantageous concerning operating time, length of hospital stay, complication rate and success rate. Our conclusions, however, are weakened by poor quality of evidence and significant study heterogeneity. In addition, whether the statistical significance observed in the present meta-analysis translates into clinical significance is an important question. Further high-quality studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, are necessary to strengthen conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the current difference between dismembered robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in the treatment of pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction as of 26 June 2017, focusing on operating time, length of hospital stay, complication rate, and success rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline and Embase databases, consulted experts, reviewed reference lists, used the 'related articles' PubMed feature, and reviewed scientific meeting abstracts for eligible articles published between 1993 and 26 June 2017. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess study quality. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding patient age, single or multisurgeon experience, presence of complex renal anatomy, study quality, Clavien-Dindo grades, and length of follow-up. RESULTS: From 4101 identified articles, 17 studies meeting our eligibility criteria were included for data extraction. All were observational studies, with 10 deemed to be of low quality. Meta-analysis showed that RAP resulted in a 27-min shorter operating time (weighted mean difference [WMD] -26.71 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -44.42 to -9.00; P = 0.003) and a 1.2-day shorter length of hospital stay (WMD -1.21 days, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.57; P = 0.003). The quality of evidence for these outcomes was rated as very low. Significant heterogeneity was found when analysing operating time (P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.001), which could not be fully explained through subgroup analyses. We also identified other potentially significant sources of bias for which we could not adjust our analysis. RAP was also associated with a lower complication rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.84; P = 0.005) and higher success rate (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.88; P = 0.008); however, whether statistical advantages for these two outcomes translated into clinically significant advantages was unclear. The quality of evidence for these outcomes was rated as low. CONCLUSION: For patients with PUJ obstruction, our meta-analyses show that RAP is advantageous concerning operating time, length of hospital stay, complication rate and success rate. Our conclusions, however, are weakened by poor quality of evidence and significant study heterogeneity. In addition, whether the statistical significance observed in the present meta-analysis translates into clinical significance is an important question. Further high-quality studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, are necessary to strengthen conclusions.
Authors: Annemarie Uhlig; Johannes Uhlig; Lutz Trojan; Marc Hinterthaner; Alexander von Hammerstein-Equord; Arne Strauss Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 2.264