BMC urology · 2023
Robotic ureteral reconstruction for benign ureteral strictures: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes : Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction for Ureteral Strictures.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Yang Kunlin, Pang Karl H, Fan Shubo, Li Xinfei, Osman Nadir I, Chapple Christopher R, Zhou Liqun, Li Xuesong
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) has been widely used to treat ureteral diseases. To summarize the surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes following RUR, as well as to compare data on RUR with open and laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction.
METHODS: Our systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022309364) database. The PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications in English on 06-Feb-2022. Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised cohort studies with sample size ≥ 10 cases were included.
RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included involving 996 patients and 1004 ureters from 13 non-comparative, and 10 retrospective comparative studies. No RCT study of RUR was reported. The success rate was reported ≥ 90% in 15 studies. Four studies reported 85-90% success rate. Meta-analyses for comparative studies showed that RUR had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.006) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) than the open approach. RUR had shorter operative time than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: RUR is associated with lower EBL and shorter LOS than the open approach, and shorter operative time than the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of benign ureteral strictures. However, further studies and more evidence are needed to determine whether RUR is more superior.
METHODS: Our systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022309364) database. The PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications in English on 06-Feb-2022. Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised cohort studies with sample size ≥ 10 cases were included.
RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included involving 996 patients and 1004 ureters from 13 non-comparative, and 10 retrospective comparative studies. No RCT study of RUR was reported. The success rate was reported ≥ 90% in 15 studies. Four studies reported 85-90% success rate. Meta-analyses for comparative studies showed that RUR had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.006) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) than the open approach. RUR had shorter operative time than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: RUR is associated with lower EBL and shorter LOS than the open approach, and shorter operative time than the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of benign ureteral strictures. However, further studies and more evidence are needed to determine whether RUR is more superior.