World journal of urology · 2024
Robotic-assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation: a multicentre comparison.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ziewers Stefanie, Dotzauer Robert, Thomas Anita, Brandt Maximilian P, Haferkamp Axel, Frees Sebastian, Zugor Vahudin, Kajaia David, Labanaris Apostolos, Kouriefs Chrysanthos, Radu Cosmin, Radavoi Daniel, Jinga Viorel, Mirvald Cristian, Sinescu Ioanel, Surcel Cristian, Tsaur Igor
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Open ureteral reimplantation is considered the standard surgical approach to treat distal ureteral strictures or injuries. These procedures are increasingly performed in a minimally invasive and robotic-assisted manner. Notably, no series comparing perioperative outcomes and safety of the open vs. robotic approach are available so far.
METHODS: In this retrospective multi-center study, we compared data from 51 robotic ureteral reimplantations (RUR) with 79 open ureteral reimplantations (OUR). Both cohorts were comparatively assessed using different baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes. Moreover, a multivariate logistic regression for independent predictors was performed.
RESULTS: Surgery time, length of hospital stay and dwell time of bladder catheter were shorter in the robotic cohort, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion rate and postoperative complications were lower than in the open cohort. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, robotic approach was an independent predictor for a shorter operation time (coefficient - 0.254, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.342 to - 0.166; p < 0.001), a lower estimated blood loss (coefficient - 0.390, 95% CI - 0.549 to - 0.231, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (coefficient - 0.455, 95% CI - 0.552 to - 0.358, p < 0.001). Moreover, robotic surgery was an independent predictor for a shorter dwell time of bladder catheter (coefficient - 0.210, 95% CI - 0.278 to - 0.142, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: RUR represents a safe alternative to OUR, with a shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Prospective research are needed to further define the extent of the advantages of the robotic approach over open surgery.
METHODS: In this retrospective multi-center study, we compared data from 51 robotic ureteral reimplantations (RUR) with 79 open ureteral reimplantations (OUR). Both cohorts were comparatively assessed using different baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes. Moreover, a multivariate logistic regression for independent predictors was performed.
RESULTS: Surgery time, length of hospital stay and dwell time of bladder catheter were shorter in the robotic cohort, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion rate and postoperative complications were lower than in the open cohort. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, robotic approach was an independent predictor for a shorter operation time (coefficient - 0.254, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.342 to - 0.166; p < 0.001), a lower estimated blood loss (coefficient - 0.390, 95% CI - 0.549 to - 0.231, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (coefficient - 0.455, 95% CI - 0.552 to - 0.358, p < 0.001). Moreover, robotic surgery was an independent predictor for a shorter dwell time of bladder catheter (coefficient - 0.210, 95% CI - 0.278 to - 0.142, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: RUR represents a safe alternative to OUR, with a shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Prospective research are needed to further define the extent of the advantages of the robotic approach over open surgery.