Living donor robotic-assisted kidney transplant compared to traditional living donor open kidney transplant. Where do we stand now? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

Renal transplant is the standard of care for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Robotic-assisted kidney transplant (RAKT) has emerged as a safe minimally invasive approach with a lower complication rate than open kidney transplant (OKT). Concerns regarding ischemia times and graft function are still a matter of debate.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42023413774, a systematic review was performed in March 2023 on RAKT compared to OKT. Primary outcomes of interest were surgical times, ischemia times, blood loss, complication rates, and graft function. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies comparing living donor RAKT to living donor OKT were included, totaling 1477 patients, out of which 508 underwent RAKT and 969 OKT. RAKT cases were highly selected as depicted in the manuscript. Cumulative analysis showed significantly longer total ischemic time (MD = 16.51; 95% CI = [9.86-23.16]) and rewarming ischemia time (MD = 11.24; 95% CI = [-0.46-22.01]) in RAKT group. No differences were found in total procedure time and time to complete anastomoses. Blood loss and transfusion rate were lower in RAKT group (MD = -53.68; 95% CI = [-89.78; -17.58]) and (RR = 0.29; 95% CI = [0.14; 0.57]), respectively. The meta-analysis revealed a lower rate of surgical site infection (SSI) (RR = 0.31; 95% CI = [0.19-0.52]) and symptomatic lymphocele (RR = 0.16; 95% CI = [0.06-0.43]) in RAKT. No difference in ileus rate was found. Pain scores were significantly lower in the RAKT group (MD = -1.14; 95% CI = [-1.59 - -0.69]; p ≤0.01). No difference in length of stay and hospital readmission were evidenced. Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection rates were not different between interventions groups (RR =1.23; 95% CI = [0.40-3.74]) and (RR =0.96; 95% CI = [0.55-1.70]), respectively. No difference between groups in early graft outcomes are evident.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that RAKT is a minimally invasive, safe, and feasible procedure. It is associated with a lower complication rate and similar intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes. Further quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.