Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2017
Safety and Effectiveness of Robot-Assisted Versus Open Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Son Soo Kyung, Lee Na Rae, Kang Seok Ho, Lee Seon Heui
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compared with open radical cystectomy (ORC) in bladder cancer.
METHODS: A literature search for the systematic review was conducted using international databases as well as domestic databases up to April 2015. Outcomes of interest included baseline characteristics, complication rates, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes.
RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were finally selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Complication rates of RARC were similar to those of ORC, except for 90-day overall complication rate, wound dehiscence, abscess, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and sepsis, which was lower after RARC. RARC was also associated with a smaller amount of estimated blood loss, lower transfusion rate, shorter length of hospital stay, shorter time to flatus, and more lymph node yield, whereas ORC was associated with a shorter operation time and lower rate of stricture. Considering oncologic outcomes, there were no differences between RARC and ORC.
CONCLUSIONS: RARC seems to be associated with equivalent complication rates, a smaller amount of estimated blood loss, lower transfusion rate, shorter length of hospital stay, shorter time to flatus, and more lymph node yield. Randomized controlled trials with a large sample size and comparative studies with long-term follow-up data are warranted to assess our findings and the oncologic effectiveness of RARC.
METHODS: A literature search for the systematic review was conducted using international databases as well as domestic databases up to April 2015. Outcomes of interest included baseline characteristics, complication rates, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes.
RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were finally selected for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Complication rates of RARC were similar to those of ORC, except for 90-day overall complication rate, wound dehiscence, abscess, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and sepsis, which was lower after RARC. RARC was also associated with a smaller amount of estimated blood loss, lower transfusion rate, shorter length of hospital stay, shorter time to flatus, and more lymph node yield, whereas ORC was associated with a shorter operation time and lower rate of stricture. Considering oncologic outcomes, there were no differences between RARC and ORC.
CONCLUSIONS: RARC seems to be associated with equivalent complication rates, a smaller amount of estimated blood loss, lower transfusion rate, shorter length of hospital stay, shorter time to flatus, and more lymph node yield. Randomized controlled trials with a large sample size and comparative studies with long-term follow-up data are warranted to assess our findings and the oncologic effectiveness of RARC.