Evidence Hub

Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy

Novara G, Catto JW, Wilson T, Annerstedt M, Chan K, Murphy DG, Motttrie A, Peabody JO et al.

European urology, 2015

Abstract

CONTEXT: Although open radical cystectomy (ORC) is still the standard approach, laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) have gained popularity.

OBJECTIVE: To report a systematic literature review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications of RARC in comparison with ORC and LRC.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched using a free-text protocol including the terms robot-assisted radical cystectomy or da Vinci radical cystectomy or robot* radical cystectomy. RARC case series and studies comparing RARC with either ORC or LRC were collected. Cumulative analysis was conducted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The searches retrieved 105 papers. According to the different diversion type, overall mean operative time ranged from 360 to 420 min. Similarly, mean blood loss ranged from 260 to 480 ml. Mean in-hospital stay was about 9 d for all diversion types, with consistently high readmission rates. In series reporting on RARC with either extracorporeal or intracorporeal conduit diversion, overall 90-d complication rates were 59% (high-grade complication: 15%). In series reporting RARC with intracorporeal continent diversion, the overall 30-d complication rate was 45.7% (high-grade complication: 28%). Reported mortality rates were ≤3% for all diversion types. Comparing RARC and ORC, cumulative analyses demonstrated shorter operative time for ORC, whereas blood loss and in-hospital stay…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free