-
Frontiers in Oncology 2023This study aims to perform a pooled analysis to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) between complex tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic)...
Perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for special types of renal tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic): an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes.
PURPOSE
This study aims to perform a pooled analysis to compare the outcomes of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) between complex tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic) and non-complex tumors (nonhilar, exophytic, or solid) and evaluate the effects of renal tumor complexity on outcomes in patients undergoing RAPN.
METHODS
Four databases were systematically searched, including Science, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to identify relevant studies published in English up to December 2022. Review Manager 5.4 was used for statistical analyses and calculations. The study was registered with PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42023394792).
RESULTS
In total, 14 comparative trials, including 3758 patients were enrolled. Compared to non-complex tumors, complex tumors were associated with a significantly longer warm ischemia time (WMD 3.67 min, 95% CI 1.78, 5.57; p = 0.0001), more blood loss (WMD 22.84 mL, 95% CI 2.31, 43.37; p = 0.03), and a higher rate of major complications (OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.50, 3.67; p = 0.0002). However, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in operative time, length of stay, transfusion rates, conversion to open nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy rates, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, intraoperative complication, overall complication, positive surgical margins (PSM), local recurrence, and trifecta achievement.
CONCLUSIONS
RAPN can be a safe and effective procedure for complex tumors (hilar, endophytic, or cystic) and provides comparable functional and oncologic outcomes to non-complex tumors.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=394792, identifier CRD42023394792.
PubMed: 37152053
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1178592 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jul 2023Urology has been at the forefront of adopting laparoscopic and robot-assisted techniques to improve patient outcomes. This systematic review aimed to examine the...
BACKGROUND
Urology has been at the forefront of adopting laparoscopic and robot-assisted techniques to improve patient outcomes. This systematic review aimed to examine the literature relating to the learning curves of major urological robotic and laparoscopic procedures.
METHODS
In accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic literature search strategy was employed across PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2021, alongside a search of the grey literature. Two independent reviewers completed the article screening and data extraction stages using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale as a quality assessment tool. The review was reported in accordance with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) guidelines.
RESULTS
Of 3702 records identified, 97 eligible studies were included for narrative synthesis. Learning curves are mapped using an array of measurements including operative time (OT), estimated blood loss, complication rates as well as procedure-specific outcomes, with OT being the most commonly used metric by eligible studies. The learning curve for OT was identified as 10-250 cases for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 40-250 for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The robot-assisted partial nephrectomy learning curve for warm ischaemia time is 4-150 cases. No high-quality studies evaluating the learning curve for laparoscopic radical cystectomy and for robotic and laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection were identified.
CONCLUSION
There was considerable variation in the definitions of outcome measures and performance thresholds, with poor reporting of potential confounders. Future studies should use multiple surgeons and large sample sizes of cases to identify the currently undefined learning curves for robotic and laparoscopic urological procedures.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotics; Urology; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Learning Curve; Laparoscopy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37132184
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000345 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2023To evaluate the impact of augmented reality surgical navigation (ARSN) technology on short-term outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN). (Review)
Review
AIM
To evaluate the impact of augmented reality surgical navigation (ARSN) technology on short-term outcomes of partial nephrectomy (PN).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science for eligible studies published through March 28, 2022. Two researchers independently performed the article screening, data extraction and quality review. Data analysis was performed using Cochrane Review Manager software.
RESULTS
A total of 583 patients from eight studies were included in the analysis, with 313 in the ARSN-assisted PN group (AR group) and 270 in the conventional PN group (NAR group). ARSN-assisted PN showed better outcomes than conventional surgery in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, global ischemia rate, warm ischemia time, and enucleation rate. However, there were no significant differences in the rate of Conversion to radical nephrectomy (RN), postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), positive margin rate, and postoperative complication rate.
CONCLUSION
The utilization of ARSN can improve the perioperative safety of PN. Compared with conventional PN, ARSN-assisted PN can reduce intraoperative blood loss, shorten operative time, and improve renal ischemia. Although direct evidence is lacking, our results still suggest a potential advantage of ARSN in improving renal recovery after PN. However, as the ARSN system is still in an exploratory stage, its relevance in PN have been poorly reported. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies will be required to confirm the effect of ARSN on PN.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=301798, identifier PROSPERO ID: CRD42022301798.
PubMed: 37123539
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1067275 -
International Journal of Surgery... Jun 2023The present study aimed to conduct a pooled analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) with open partial nephrectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The present study aimed to conduct a pooled analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) with open partial nephrectomy (OPN) in patients with complex renal tumors (defined as PADUA or RENAL score ≥7).
METHODS
The present study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/JS9/A394 . We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until October 2022. MIPN and OPN-controlled trials for complex renal tumors were included. The primary outcomes were perioperative results, complications, renal function, and oncologic outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 2405 patients were included in 13 studies. MIPN outperformed OPN in terms of hospital stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.84 days, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.33; P <0.00001], blood loss (WMD -52.42 ml, 95% CI -71.43 to -33.41; P <0.00001), transfusion rates [odds ratio (OR) 0.34, 95% CI 0.17-0.67; P =0.002], major complications (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86; P =0.007) and overall complications (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.59; P <0.0001), while operative time, warm ischemia time, conversion to radical nephrectomy rates, estimated glomerular decline, positive surgical margins, local recurrence, overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and cancer-specific survival were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study demonstrated that MIPN was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay, less blood loss, and fewer complications in treating complex renal tumors. MIPN may be considered a better treatment for patients with complex tumors when technically feasible.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Kidney Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 37094827
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000397 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2023Studies have shown that remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) can effectively attenuate ischemic-reperfusion injury in the heart and brain, but the effect on... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Studies have shown that remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) can effectively attenuate ischemic-reperfusion injury in the heart and brain, but the effect on ischemic-reperfusion injury in patients with kidney transplantation or partial nephrectomy remains controversial. The main objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether RIC provides renal protection after renal ischemia-reperfusion injury in patients undergoing kidney transplantation or partial nephrectomy.
METHODS
A computer-based search was conducted to retrieve relevant publications from the PubMed database, Embase database, Cochrane Library and Web of Science database. We then conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that met our study inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Eleven eligible studies included a total of 1,145 patients with kidney transplantation or partial nephrectomy for systematic review and meta-analysis, among whom 576 patients were randomly assigned to the RIC group and the remaining 569 to the control group. The 3-month estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was improved in the RIC group, which was statistically significant between the two groups on kidney transplantation [< 0.001; mean difference (MD) = 2.74, confidence interval (CI): 1.41 to 4.06; = 14%], and the 1- and 2-day postoperative Scr levels in the RIC group decreased, which was statistically significant between the two groups on kidney transplantation (1-day postoperative: < 0.001; MD = 0.10, CI: 0.05 to 0.15, = 0; 2-day postoperative: = 0.006; MD = 0.41, CI: 0.12 to 0.70, = 0), but at other times, there was no significant difference between the two groups in Scr levels. The incidence of delayed graft function (DGF) decreased, but there was no significant difference (= 0.60; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.26). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of cross-clamp time, cold ischemia time, warm ischemic time, acute rejection (AR), graft loss or length of hospital stay.
CONCLUSION
Our meta-analysis showed that the effect of remote ischemia conditioning on reducing serum creatinine (Scr) and improving estimate glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) seemed to be very weak, and we did not observe a significant protective effect of RIC on renal ischemic-reperfusion. Due to small sample sizes, more studies using stricter inclusion criteria are needed to elucidate the nephroprotective effect of RIC in renal surgery in the future.
PubMed: 37091267
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1024650 -
Cancers Mar 2023(1) Background: In recent years there have been advances in imaging techniques, in addition to progress in the surgery of renal tumors directed towards minimally... (Review)
Review
(1) Background: In recent years there have been advances in imaging techniques, in addition to progress in the surgery of renal tumors directed towards minimally invasive techniques. Thus, nephron-sparing surgery has become the gold standard for the treatment of T1 renal masses. The aim of this study is to investigate the benefits of robotic partial nephrectomy in comparison with laparoscopic nephrectomy. (2) Methods: We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA criteria during September 2022. We included clinical trials, and cohort and case-control studies published between 2000 and 2022. This comprised studies performed in adult patients with T1 renal cancer and studies comparing robotic with open and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. A risk of bias assessment was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. (3) Results: We observed lower hot ischemia times in the robotic surgery groups, although at the cost of an increase in total operative time, without appreciating the differences in terms of serious surgical complications (Clavien III-V). (4) Conclusions: Robotic partial nephrectomy is a safe procedure, with a shorter learning curve than laparoscopic surgery and with all the benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
PubMed: 36980679
DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061793 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains...
BACKGROUND
The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains controversial. Two meta-analyses in 2018 and 2019 reported the postoperative mortality of PBT patients with RCC, but they did not investigate the effect on the survival of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature to demonstrate whether PBT affected postoperative survival in RCC patients who received nephrectomy.
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. Studies comparing RCC patients with or without PBT following either RN or PN were included in this analysis. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS), as well as 95% confidence intervals, were considered as effect sizes. All data were processed using Stata 15.1.
RESULTS
Ten retrospective studies involving 19,240 patients were included in this analysis, with the publication dates ranging from 2014 to 2022. Evidence revealed that PBT was significantly associated with the decline of OS (HR, 2.62; 95%CI: 1,98-3.46), RFS (HR, 2.55; 95%CI: 1.74-3.75), and CSS (HR, 3.15; 95%CI: 2.3-4.31) values. There was high heterogeneity among the study results due to the retrospective nature and the low quality of the included studies. Subgroup analysis findings suggested that the heterogeneity of this study might be caused by different tumor stages in the included articles. Evidence implied that PBT had no significant influence on RFS and CSS with or without robotic assistance, but it was still linked to worse OS (combined HR; 2.54 95% CI: 1.18, 5.47). Furthermore, the subgroup analysis with intraoperative blood loss lower than 800 ML revealed that PBT had no substantial impact on OS and CSS of postoperative RCC patients, whereas it was correlated with poor RFS (1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97).
CONCLUSIONS
RCC patients undergoing PBT after nephrectomy had poorer survival.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022363106.
PubMed: 36874080
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1092734 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2023In recent years, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the field of urology, especially in radical cystectomy and radical prostatectomy, and has...
OBJECTIVES
In recent years, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been widely used in the field of urology, especially in radical cystectomy and radical prostatectomy, and has demonstrated its advantages. Although studies on the application of ERAS in partial nephrectomy for renal tumors are increasing, the conclusions are mixed, especially in terms of postoperative complications, etc, and its safety and efficacy are questionable. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of ERAS in the application of partial nephrectomy for renal tumors.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, Cohrance library, Web of science and Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, Wangfang and CBM) were systematically searched for all published literature related to the application of enhanced recovery after surgery in partial nephrectomy for renal tumors from the date of establishment to July 15, 2022, and the literature was screened by inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of the literature was evaluated for each of the included literature. This Meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022351038) and data were processed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 16.0SE. The results were presented and analyzed by weighted mean difference (WMD), Standard Mean Difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) at their 95% confidence interval (CI). Finally, the limitations of this study are analyzed in order to provide a more objective view of the results of this study.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 35 literature, including 19 retrospective cohort studies and 16 randomized controlled studies with a total of 3171 patients. The ERAS group was found to exhibit advantages in the following outcome indicators: postoperative hospital stay (WMD=-2.88, 95% CI: -3.71 to -2.05, p<0.001), total hospital stay (WMD=-3.35, 95% CI: -3.73 to -2.97, p<0.001), time to first postoperative bed activity (SMD=-3.80, 95% CI: -4.61 to -2.98, p < 0.001), time to first postoperative anal exhaust (SMD=-1.55, 95% CI: -1.92 to -1.18, p < 0.001), time to first postoperative bowel movement (SMD=-1.52, 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.96, p < 0.001), time to first postoperative food intake (SMD=-3.65, 95% CI: -4.59 to -2.71, p<0.001), time to catheter removal (SMD=-3.69, 95% CI: -4.61 to -2.77, p<0.001), time to drainage tube removal (SMD=-2.77, 95% CI: -3.41 to -2.13, p<0.001), total postoperative complication incidence (RR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.49, p<0.001), postoperative hemorrhage incidence (RR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.66, p<0.001), postoperative urinary leakage incidence (RR=0.27, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.65, p=0.004), deep vein thrombosis incidence (RR=0.14, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.36, p<0.001), and hospitalization costs (WMD=-0.82, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.43, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
ERAS is safe and effective in partial nephrectomy of renal tumors. In addition, ERAS can improve the turnover rate of hospital beds, reduce medical costs and improve the utilization rate of medical resources.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022351038.
PubMed: 36845687
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1049294 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Apr 2023Partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation and active surveillance are acceptable options for T1 stage renal tumor management. Currently, we lack sufficient information to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Partial nephrectomy, thermal ablation and active surveillance are acceptable options for T1 stage renal tumor management. Currently, we lack sufficient information to make an accurate comparison of thermal ablation with active surveillance. The study objectives were to compare thermal ablation with active surveillance indirectly using partial nephrectomy as a reference.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic literature search using two databases (Scopus and Medline). The detailed search strategy is available at Prospero, CRD42021290055. The primary outcome was cancer-specific survival. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and metastasis-free survival.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The final sample comprised 33 articles. They included the ones that compare: partial nephrectomy to ablation (29 studies), partial nephrectomy to active surveillance (2 studies), and partial nephrectomy vs. active surveillance vs. ablation (2 articles). We assessed 3-year and 5-year cancer-specific survival, and 3-, 5- and 7-year overall survival. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) treatment benefit ranking was: cancer-specific survival - 48.6% for thermal ablation and 1.6% for active surveillance (5-year follow-up); overall survival - 52% for thermal ablation and 0.6% for active surveillance (7-year follow-up). The results demonstrated a significantly higher 3-year cancer-specific survival (RR 1.55, P=0.02) and 3- and 7-year follow-up overall survival (RR 1.85, P=0.03) in thermal ablation compared to active surveillance. At 5-year follow-up, cancer-specific survival and overall survival were in favor of thermal ablation while no statistically significant difference was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Thermal ablation offers a significantly higher cancer-specific survival and overall survival at mid-term follow-up in the management of T1 renal tumors compared to active surveillance. However, it is necessary to conduct further prospective randomized studies to validate the data.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Watchful Waiting; Kidney Neoplasms; Nephrectomy
PubMed: 36799495
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.05036-4 -
Minerva Urology and Nephrology Apr 2023The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of routine drainage insertion vs. no drainage in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of routine drainage insertion vs. no drainage in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A literature search was conducted through April 2022 using PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify eligible studies.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eleven studies comprising 8447 RARPs and 1890 RAPNs met our inclusion criteria. Our search strategy did not identify any studies within the RARC framework. In RARP, patients without postoperative drainage had lower rate of postoperative ileus (OR 0.53, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.001) and similar low-grade (Clavien 1-2, P=0.41) and high-grade (Clavien ≥3; P=0.85) complications, urinary leakage (P=0.07), pelvic hematoma (P=0.35), symptomatic lymphocele (P=0.13), fever (P=0.25), incisional hernia (P=0.31), reintervention (P=0.57), length of hospital stay (P=0.22), and readmission (P=0.74) compared with routinely drained patients. In RAPN, patients without postoperative drainage had shorter length of hospital stay (mean difference: -0.84 days, 95% CI: -1.06 to -0.63; P<0.001) and similar low-grade (P=0.94) and high-grade (P=0.31) complications, urinary leakage (P=0.49), hemorrhage (P=0.39), reintervention (P=0.69), and readmission (P=0.20) compared with routinely drained patients.
CONCLUSIONS
In our study, patients without drainage had similar perioperative course to patients with prophylactic drain insertion after RARP and RAPN. Omission of drain insertion was associated with a lower rate of postoperative ileus for RARP and a shorter hospital stay for RAPN. In the era of robotic surgery, routine drain placement is no longer indicated in unselected patients.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Cystectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36722161
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.05160-6