Perioperative outcomes and safety of robotic vs open cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12,640 cases

Clement, Keiran; Pearce, Emily; Gabr, Ahmed H.; Prasad, Bhavan; Al‐Ansari, Abdulla; Aboumarzouk, Omar M.

doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03385-8

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research questions of interest (with redundant and potentially outdated MAs): Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open RC (Clement et al . 29 , Rai et al . 30 , Sathianathen et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Framework for a living systematic review and meta-analysis for the surgical treatment of bladder cancer: introducing EVIglance to urology

Wieland,

Uysal,

Probst

et al. 2023

International Journal of Surgery Protocols

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Knowledge of current and ongoing studies is critical for identifying research gaps and enabling evidence-based decisions for individualized treatment. However, the increasing number of scientific publications poses challenges for healthcare providers and patients in all medical fields to stay updated with the latest evidence. To overcome these barriers, we aim to develop a living systematic review and open-access online evidence map of surgical therapy for bladder cancer (BC), including meta-analyses. Methods: Following the guidelines provided in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement, a systematic literature search on uro-oncological therapy in BC will be performed across various literature databases. Within the scope of a meta-analysis and living systematic review, relevant randomized controlled trials will be identified. Data extraction and quantitative analysis will be conducted, along with a critical appraisal of the quality and risk of bias of each study. The available research evidence will be entered into an open-access framework (www.evidencemap.surgery) and will also be accessible via the EVIglance app. Regular semi-automatic updates will enable the implementation of a real-living review concept and facilitate resource-efficient screening. Discussion: A regularly updated evidence map provides professionals and patients with an open-access knowledge base on the current state of research, allowing for decision-making based on recent evidence. It will help identify an oversupply of evidence, thus avoiding redundant work. Furthermore, by identifying research gaps, new hypotheses can be formulated more precisely, enabling planning, determination of sample size, and definition of endpoints for future trials.

show abstract

“…Research questions of interest (with redundant and potentially outdated MAs): Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open RC (Clement et al . 29 , Rai et al . 30 , Sathianathen et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open RC (Clement et al . 29 , Rai et al . 30 , Sathianathen et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framework for a living systematic review and meta-analysis for the surgical treatment of bladder cancer: introducing EVIglance to urology

Wieland,

Uysal,

Probst

et al. 2023

International Journal of Surgery Protocols

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We hypothesized that within a large-scale, contemporary data repository, no differences in perioperative outcomes will be identified between RARC versus ORC perioperative outcomes, unlike in previously reported reports from select tertiary care centers and/or from prospectively, randomized trials. [1][2][3][4][5]14 We addressed four specific endpoints of interest:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 We addressed the current knowledge gap and hypothesized that within a large-scale, contemporary data set, no differences will be identified and the previously described moderate benefits of RARC may not apply to large-scale epidemiological settings. [1][2][3][4][5]14 To test these hypotheses, we addressed four specific endpoints of interest: (a) complication rates, (b) in-hospital mortality, (c) length of stay (LOS), and (d) total hospital costs (THC). Additionally, trend analyses were performed to investigate the uptake of RARC rates in the most contemporary years.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of robotic‐assisted versus open radical cystectomy in a large‐scale, contemporary cohort of bladder cancer patients

Hoeh

Flammia

Hohenhorst

et al. 2022

Journal of Surgical Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: To test for differences in perioperative outcomes and total hospital costs (THC) in nonmetastatic bladder cancer patients undergoing open (ORC) versus robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC).Methods: We relied on the National Inpatient Sample database (2016)(2017)(2018)(2019).Statistics consisted of trend analyses, multivariable logistic, Poisson, and linear regression models.Results: Of 5280 patients, 1876 (36%) versus 3200 (60%) underwent RARC versus ORC. RARC increased from 32% to 41% (estimated annual percentage

show abstract

“…Robot‐assisted surgical procedures in urology have increased considerably in the last decade 1 . The main advantages of robot‐assisted surgery compared to open surgery are reduced per‐operative bleeding leading to reduced postoperative blood transfusions, and shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) 2–4 . Conversely, oncological outcomes do not seem to differ between the two types of procedure 5,6 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medico‐economic impact of onco‐urological robot‐assisted minimally invasive surgery in a high‐volume centre

Grobet-Jeandin

Pinar

Parra

et al. 2022

Robotics Computer Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We lack data regarding the economic cost of robot‐assisted surgical procedures in urology. We aimed to assess the medico‐economic impact of onco‐urological robot‐assisted surgery. Methods All patients who underwent robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) in 2019 were included. Cost assessment included the costs of surgery, hospital stay, and complications. Global cost was calculated and compared with open and laparoscopic procedures. Results Overall, 126 (48%) RAPN and 135 (52%) RARP were included. Total cost per patient was 6857€ for RARP and 6034€ for RAPN. Costs of surgery, hospital stay, and complications represented 76.2%, 21.5%, and 2.3%, respectively, of the total cost per patient for RAPN, and 74.1%, 25.9%, and 0% for RARP. Compared to the open approach, RAPN was 6% cheaper and RARP was 10% more expensive per patient. Standard laparoscopic procedures were cheaper. Conclusions Robotic procedures were associated with increased costs of surgical procedures, but with reduction in morbidity and hospital stay costs.

show abstract

Perioperative outcomes and safety of robotic vs open cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 12,640 cases

Cited by 12 publications

References 71 publications

Framework for a living systematic review and meta-analysis for the surgical treatment of bladder cancer: introducing EVIglance to urology

Framework for a living systematic review and meta-analysis for the surgical treatment of bladder cancer: introducing EVIglance to urology

Outcomes of robotic‐assisted versus open radical cystectomy in a large‐scale, contemporary cohort of bladder cancer patients

Medico‐economic impact of onco‐urological robot‐assisted minimally invasive surgery in a high‐volume centre

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About