Evidence Hub

Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy Versus Open Radical Cystectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Perioperative, Oncological, and Quality of Life Outcomes Using Randomized Controlled Trials

P. Khetrapal, Joanna Kae Ling Wong, Wei Phin Tan, Thiara Rupasinghe, W. Tan, S. Williams, S. Boorjian, C. Wijburg et al.

European Urology, 2023

1,024 participants · 101 citations

Abstract

CONTEXT

Differences in recovery, oncological, and quality of life (QoL) outcomes between open radical cystectomy (ORC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for patients with bladder cancer are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to compare these outcomes within randomized trials of ORC and RARC in this context. The primary outcome was the rate of 90-d perioperative events. The secondary outcomes included operative, pathological, survival, and health-related QoL (HRQoL) measures.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and clinicaltrials.gov were performed up to May 31, 2022.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eight trials, reporting 1024 participants, were included. RARC was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS; mean difference [MD] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.03-0.39, p = 0.02) than and similar complication rates to ORC. ORC was associated with higher thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR] 1.84, 95% CI 1.02-3.31, p = 0.04). ORC was associated with more blood loss (MD 322 ml, 95% CI 193-450, p < 0.001) and transfusions (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.65-3.36, p < 0.001), but shorter operative time (MD 76 min, 95% CI 39-112, p < 0.001) than RARC. No differences in lymph node yield (MD 1.07, 95% CI -1.73 to 3.86, p = 0.5) or positive surgical margin rates (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54-1.67, p = 0.9) were present. RARC was associated with better physical functioning or well-being (standardized MD 0.47, 95% CI 0.29-0.65, p < 0.001)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, 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. Reported size: 1,024 participants or records.

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