Keiran D Clement1, Emily Pearce2, Ahmed H Gabr3,4, Bhavan P Rai5, Abdulla Al-Ansari6, Omar M Aboumarzouk6,7. 1. Department of Urology, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Castlehead, Paisley, PA2 9PJ, UK. keiranclement@nhs.net. 2. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Royal Hospital for Children, Glasgow, UK. 3. Department of Urology, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Castlehead, Paisley, PA2 9PJ, UK. 4. Department of Urology, Minia University, Minia, Egypt. 5. Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 6. Department of Surgery, Hamad General Hospital, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar. 7. University of Medicine, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Robotic radical cystectomy (RRC) has become a commonly utilised alternative to open radical cystectomy (ORC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RRC vs ORC focusing on perioperative outcomes and safety. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from January 2000 to April 2020 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement for study selection. RESULTS: In total, 47 studies (5 randomised controlled trials, 42 non-randomised comparative studies) comprising 12,640 patients (6572 ORC, 6068 RRC) were included. There was no difference in baseline demographics between the groups apart from males were more likely to undergo ORC (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.85). Those with muscle-invasive disease were more likely to undergo RRC (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.34), and those with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer were more likely to undergo ORC (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89). RRC had a significantly longer operating time, less blood loss and lower transfusion rate. There was no difference in lymph node yield, rate of positive surgical margins, or Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II complications between the two groups. However, the RRC group were less likely to experience Clavien-Dindo Grade III-IV (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.30-1.89) and overall complications (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.26-1.68) than the ORC group. The mortality rate was higher in ORC although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.99-2.35). CONCLUSION: RRC has significantly lower blood loss, transfusion rate and is associated with fewer high grade and overall complications compared to ORC.
PURPOSE: Robotic radical cystectomy (RRC) has become a commonly utilised alternative to open radical cystectomy (ORC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RRC vs ORC focusing on perioperative outcomes and safety. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from January 2000 to April 2020 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement for study selection. RESULTS: In total, 47 studies (5 randomised controlled trials, 42 non-randomised comparative studies) comprising 12,640 patients (6572 ORC, 6068 RRC) were included. There was no difference in baseline demographics between the groups apart from males were more likely to undergo ORC (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.85). Those with muscle-invasive disease were more likely to undergo RRC (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.09-1.34), and those with high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer were more likely to undergo ORC (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89). RRC had a significantly longer operating time, less blood loss and lower transfusion rate. There was no difference in lymph node yield, rate of positive surgical margins, or Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II complications between the two groups. However, the RRC group were less likely to experience Clavien-Dindo Grade III-IV (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.30-1.89) and overall complications (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.26-1.68) than the ORC group. The mortality rate was higher in ORC although this did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.99-2.35). CONCLUSION: RRC has significantly lower blood loss, transfusion rate and is associated with fewer high grade and overall complications compared to ORC.
Authors: Bernard H Bochner; Guido Dalbagni; Daniel D Sjoberg; Jonathan Silberstein; Gal E Keren Paz; S Machele Donat; Jonathan A Coleman; Sheila Mathew; Andrew Vickers; Geoffrey C Schnorr; Michael A Feuerstein; Bruce Rapkin; Raul O Parra; Harry W Herr; Vincent P Laudone Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J Alfred Witjes; Eva Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Maria De Santis; Georgios Gakis; Thierry Lebret; Maria J Ribal; Antoine G Van der Heijden; Amir Sherif Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Muhammad Shamim Khan; Christine Gan; Kamran Ahmed; Ahmad Fahim Ismail; Jane Watkins; Jennifer A Summers; Janet L Peacock; Peter Rimington; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Bhavan Prasad Rai; Jasper Bondad; Nikhil Vasdev; Jim Adshead; Tim Lane; Kamran Ahmed; Mohammed S Khan; Prokar Dasgupta; Khurshid Guru; Piotr L Chlosta; Omar M Aboumarzouk Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-24