Robotic‐assisted versus open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: A meta‐analysis of four randomized controlled trails

• Published in: The international journal of medical robotics + computer assisted surgery Vol. 14; no. 1
• Main Authors: Tang, Jin‐Qiu, Zhao, Zhihong, Liang, Yiwen, Liao, Guixiang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.02.2018
• Subjects: Bladder; Bladder cancer; Cancer; Health risk assessment; Meta-analysis; open radical cystectomy; Randomization; randomized controlled trial; robot‐assisted radical cystectomy; meta-analysis; open radical cystectomy; robot-assisted radical cystectomy; randomized controlled trial
• ISSN: 1478-5951; 1478-596X
• DOI: 10.1002/rcs.1867

Background Robot‐assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is increasing annually for treatment of bladder cancer. The objective of this meta‐analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of RARC and open radical cystectomy (ORC) for bladder cancer. Methods Our meta‐analysis searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) assessing the two techniques. Results Four RCT studies were identified, including 239 cases. Our studies indicated that RARC was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 69.69, 95% CI:17.25 to122.12; P= 0.009), lower estimated blood loss (WMD: –299.83, 95% CI:–414.66to −184.99; P<0.00001). The two groups had no significant difference in overall perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, lymph node yield and positive surgical margins. Conclusions RARC is mini‐invasive alternative to ORC for bladder cancer. The advantage of RARC was reduced estimated blood loss. More studies are needed to compare the two techniques.