Evidence Hub

Systematic review and cumulative analysis of oncologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy

Yuh B, Wilson T, Bochner B, Chan K, Palou J, Stenzl A, Montorsi F, Thalmann G 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) are increasingly performed.

OBJECTIVE: To report on a systematic literature review and cumulative analysis of pathologic, oncologic, and functional outcomes 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. A cumulative analysis was conducted.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The searches retrieved 105 papers, 87 of which reported on pathologic, oncologic, or functional outcomes. Most series were retrospective and had small case numbers, short follow-up, and potential patient selection bias. The lymph node yield during lymph node dissection was 19 (range: 3-55), with half of the series following an extended template (yield range: 11-55). The lymph node-positive rate was 22%. The performance of lymphadenectomy was correlated with surgeon and institutional volume. Cumulative analyses showed no significant difference in lymph node yield between RARC and ORC. Positive surgical margin (PSM) rates were 5.6% (1-1.5% in pT2 disease and 0-25% in pT3 and higher disease). PSM rates did not appear to decrease with sequential case numbers.…

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