Robotic versus open partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
<h4>Objectives</h4>To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094878 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | <h4>Objectives</h4>To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in October 2013. All relevant studies comparing RPN with OPN were included for further screening. A cumulative meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.<h4>Results</h4>Eight studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 3418 patients (757 patients in the robotic group and 2661 patients in the open group). Although RPN procedures had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 40.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.39-67.40; p = 0.002), patients in this group benefited from a lower perioperative complication rate (19.3% for RPN and 29.5% for OPN; odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42-0.67; p<0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.78; 95%CI, -3.36 to -1.92; p<0.00001), less estimated blood loss(WMD: -106.83; 95%CI, -176.4 to -37.27; p = 0.003). Transfusions, conversion to radical nephrectomy, ischemia time and estimated GFR change, margin status, and overall cost were comparable between the two techniques. The main limitation of the present meta-analysis is the non-randomization of all included studies.<h4>Conclusions</h4>RPN appears to be an efficient alternative to OPN with the advantages of a lower rate of perioperative complications, shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss. Nevertheless, high quality prospective randomized studies with longer follow-up period are needed to confirm these findings. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 |