Laparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: Is it time to re-establish the standard? Evidence from a systematic review

Objective: To conduct a systematic review of comparative studies of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU), the standard management for upper urothelial tumours, and robot-assisted NU (RANU) that has emerged as a viable alternative. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched acco...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Thomas Stonier, Nick Simson, Su-Min Lee, Ian Robertson, Tarik Amer, Bhaskar K. Somani, Bhavan P. Rai, Omar Aboumarzouk
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Taylor & Francis Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/eafbca21575d40e39091bdffc3909ac3
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:eafbca21575d40e39091bdffc3909ac3
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:eafbca21575d40e39091bdffc3909ac32021-12-02T09:51:22ZLaparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: Is it time to re-establish the standard? Evidence from a systematic review2090-598X10.1016/j.aju.2017.05.002https://doaj.org/article/eafbca21575d40e39091bdffc3909ac32017-09-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090598X17300670https://doaj.org/toc/2090-598XObjective: To conduct a systematic review of comparative studies of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU), the standard management for upper urothelial tumours, and robot-assisted NU (RANU) that has emerged as a viable alternative. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all studies reporting on both LNU and RANU for upper urothelial tract tumours. Results: In all, 1630 patients were included, of which 838 underwent LNU and 792 RANU. Three studies reported on mean operative time and found it to be less in LNU, with two reporting this to be significant (RANU 298 vs LNU 251 min, P = 0.03; 306 vs 234 min, respectively, P < 0.001). Both studies reporting on median node count found this to be higher in the robotic groups: RANU 5.5 vs LNU 1.0 and RANU 21 vs LNU 11. Positive surgical margins (RANU 1.69% vs LNU 7.06%, P = 0.18), bladder recurrence (24.6% vs 36.89%, P = 0.09), and distant metastases (27.50% vs 17.50%, P = 0.29) were not significantly different between the two techniques. Disease-specific mortality did not differ between the two techniques (RANU 7.5% vs LNU 12.5%, P = 0.46), but postoperative mortality was reduced in RANU (0.14% vs 1.32%, P = 0.03). Overall complication rates were statistically lower in RANU, at 12.5% vs 18.8% (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This review suggests these techniques are equivalent in terms of perioperative and oncological performance. Furthermore, there may be a lower overall complication rate, as well as postoperative mortality in the robotic group. Further research in the form of a randomised controlled trial is warranted.Thomas StonierNick SimsonSu-Min LeeIan RobertsonTarik AmerBhaskar K. SomaniBhavan P. RaiOmar AboumarzoukTaylor & Francis GrouparticleNephroureterectomyRoboticLaparoscopicUreteric neoplasm ureterDiseases of the genitourinary system. UrologyRC870-923ENArab Journal of Urology, Vol 15, Iss 3, Pp 177-186 (2017)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Nephroureterectomy
Robotic
Laparoscopic
Ureteric neoplasm ureter
Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
RC870-923
spellingShingle Nephroureterectomy
Robotic
Laparoscopic
Ureteric neoplasm ureter
Diseases of the genitourinary system. Urology
RC870-923
Thomas Stonier
Nick Simson
Su-Min Lee
Ian Robertson
Tarik Amer
Bhaskar K. Somani
Bhavan P. Rai
Omar Aboumarzouk
Laparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: Is it time to re-establish the standard? Evidence from a systematic review
description Objective: To conduct a systematic review of comparative studies of laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU), the standard management for upper urothelial tumours, and robot-assisted NU (RANU) that has emerged as a viable alternative. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify all studies reporting on both LNU and RANU for upper urothelial tract tumours. Results: In all, 1630 patients were included, of which 838 underwent LNU and 792 RANU. Three studies reported on mean operative time and found it to be less in LNU, with two reporting this to be significant (RANU 298 vs LNU 251 min, P = 0.03; 306 vs 234 min, respectively, P < 0.001). Both studies reporting on median node count found this to be higher in the robotic groups: RANU 5.5 vs LNU 1.0 and RANU 21 vs LNU 11. Positive surgical margins (RANU 1.69% vs LNU 7.06%, P = 0.18), bladder recurrence (24.6% vs 36.89%, P = 0.09), and distant metastases (27.50% vs 17.50%, P = 0.29) were not significantly different between the two techniques. Disease-specific mortality did not differ between the two techniques (RANU 7.5% vs LNU 12.5%, P = 0.46), but postoperative mortality was reduced in RANU (0.14% vs 1.32%, P = 0.03). Overall complication rates were statistically lower in RANU, at 12.5% vs 18.8% (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This review suggests these techniques are equivalent in terms of perioperative and oncological performance. Furthermore, there may be a lower overall complication rate, as well as postoperative mortality in the robotic group. Further research in the form of a randomised controlled trial is warranted.
format article
author Thomas Stonier
Nick Simson
Su-Min Lee
Ian Robertson
Tarik Amer
Bhaskar K. Somani
Bhavan P. Rai
Omar Aboumarzouk
author_facet Thomas Stonier
Nick Simson
Su-Min Lee
Ian Robertson
Tarik Amer
Bhaskar K. Somani
Bhavan P. Rai
Omar Aboumarzouk
author_sort Thomas Stonier
title Laparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: Is it time to re-establish the standard? Evidence from a systematic review
title_short Laparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: Is it time to re-establish the standard? Evidence from a systematic review
title_full Laparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: Is it time to re-establish the standard? Evidence from a systematic review
title_fullStr Laparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: Is it time to re-establish the standard? Evidence from a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: Is it time to re-establish the standard? Evidence from a systematic review
title_sort laparoscopic vs robotic nephroureterectomy: is it time to re-establish the standard? evidence from a systematic review
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
publishDate 2017
url https://doaj.org/article/eafbca21575d40e39091bdffc3909ac3
work_keys_str_mv AT thomasstonier laparoscopicvsroboticnephroureterectomyisittimetoreestablishthestandardevidencefromasystematicreview
AT nicksimson laparoscopicvsroboticnephroureterectomyisittimetoreestablishthestandardevidencefromasystematicreview
AT suminlee laparoscopicvsroboticnephroureterectomyisittimetoreestablishthestandardevidencefromasystematicreview
AT ianrobertson laparoscopicvsroboticnephroureterectomyisittimetoreestablishthestandardevidencefromasystematicreview
AT tarikamer laparoscopicvsroboticnephroureterectomyisittimetoreestablishthestandardevidencefromasystematicreview
AT bhaskarksomani laparoscopicvsroboticnephroureterectomyisittimetoreestablishthestandardevidencefromasystematicreview
AT bhavanprai laparoscopicvsroboticnephroureterectomyisittimetoreestablishthestandardevidencefromasystematicreview
AT omaraboumarzouk laparoscopicvsroboticnephroureterectomyisittimetoreestablishthestandardevidencefromasystematicreview
_version_ 1718398039177035776