Daqing Zhu1, Xue Shao2, Gang Guo3, Nandong Zhang4, Taoping Shi1, Yi Wang5, Liangyou Gu3. 1. Department of Urology, Hainan Hospital, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Sanya, China. 2. Department of Neurology, Hainan Hospital, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Sanya, China. 3. Department of Urology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia University For Nationalities, Tongliao, China. 5. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical College, Haikou, China.
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% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed-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 significant 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.
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% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed-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 significant 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.
Authors: Eric H Kim; Jeffery A Larson; Aaron M Potretzke; Nicholas K Hulsey; Sam B Bhayani; R Sherburne Figenshau Journal: J Endourol Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Sohrab Arora; Gerald Heulitt; Mani Menon; Wooju Jeong; Rajesh K Ahlawat; Umberto Capitanio; Daniel A Moon; Kris K Maes; Sudhir Rawal; Alexander Mottrie; Mahendra Bhandari; Craig G Rogers; James R Porter Journal: Urology Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: David J Paulucci; Alp Tuna Beksac; James Porter; Ronney Abaza; Daniel D Eun; Akshay Bhandari; Ashok K Hemal; Ketan K Badani Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: P Sparwasser; S Epple; A Thomas; R Dotzauer; K Boehm; M P Brandt; R Mager; H Borgmann; M M Kamal; M Kurosch; T Höfner; A Haferkamp; I Tsaur Journal: World J Urol Date: 2022-01-17 Impact factor: 3.661