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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
GakisG, EfstathiouJ, LernerSP, CooksonMS, KeeganKA, GuruKA, et al.ICUD-EAU International Consultation on Bladder Cancer 2012: Radical cystectomy and bladder preservation for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol, 2013; 63:45–57.
2.
StenzlA, CowanNC, De SantisM, KuczykMA, MerseburgerAS, RibalMJ, et al.Treatment of muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: Update of the EAU guidelines. Eur Urol, 2011; 59:1009–1018.
3.
SkinnerD, CrawfordE, KaufmanJ. Complications of radical cystectomy for carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol, 1980; 123:640–643.
4.
ShabsighA, KoretsR, VoraKC, BrooksCM, CroninAM, SavageC, et al.Defining early morbidity of radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer using a standardized reporting methodology. Eur Urol, 2009; 55:164–176.
5.
PrestonMA, LernerSP, KibelAS. New Trends in the surgical management of invasive bladder cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am, 2015; 29:253–269.
6.
SiegelR, MaJ, ZouZ, JemalA. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin, 2014; 64:9–29.
7.
MerseburgerAS, HerrmannTR, ShariatSF, KyriazisI, NageleU, TraxerO, et al.EAU guidelines on robotic and single-site surgery in urology. Eur Urol, 2013; 64:277–291.
8.
WangGJ, BarocasDA, RamanJD, ScherrDS. Robotic vs open radical cystectomy: Prospective comparison of perioperative outcomes and pathological measures of early oncological efficacy. BJU Int, 2008; 101:89–93.
9.
MenonM, HemalA, TewariA, ShrivastavaA, ShomaA, El-TabeyN, et al.Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int, 2003; 92:232–236.
10.
HemalAK, Abol-EneinH, TewariA, ShrivastavaA, ShomaAM, GhoneimMA, et al.Robotic radical cystectomy and urinary diversion in the management of bladder cancer. Urol Clin North Am, 2004; 31:719–729.
11.
GuruKA, KimHL, PiacentePM, MohlerJL. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: Initial experience at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Urology, 2007; 69:469–474.
12.
KangSG, KangSH, LeeYG, RhaKH, JeongBC, KoYH, et al.Robot-assisted radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: A multi-institutional study from Korea. J Endourol, 2010; 24:1435–1440.
13.
MonnMF, CaryKC, KaimakliotisHZ, FlackCK, KochMO (eds). National trends in the utilization of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: An analysis using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Urol Oncol, 2014; 32:785–790.
14.
AhmedK, KhanSA, HaynMH, AgarwalPK, BadaniKK, BalbayMD, et al.Analysis of intracorporeal compared with extracorporeal urinary diversion after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol, 2014; 65:340–347.
15.
AzzouniF. Current status of minimally invasive radical cystectomy: An outcome-based comparison. Expert review of anticancer therapy, 2013; 13:681–695.
16.
HigginsJP, AltmanDG, GøtzschePC, JüniP, MoherD, OxmanAD, et al.The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2011; 343:d5928.
17.
KimSY, ParkJE, LeeYJ, SeoH-J, SheenS-S, HahnS, et al.Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol, 2013; 66:408–414.
18.
HozoSP, DjulbegovicB, HozoI. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2005; 5:13.
19.
EggerM, SmithGD, SchneiderM, MinderC. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 1997; 315:629–634.
20.
ParekhDJ, MesserJ, FitzgeraldJ, ErcoleB, SvatekR. Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol, 2013; 189:474–479.
21.
AbazaR, DanglePP, GongMC, BahnsonRR, PoharKS. Quality of lymphadenectomy is equivalent with robotic and open cystectomy using an extended template. J Urol, 2012; 187:1200–1205.
22.
AboumohamedAA, RazaSJ, Al-DaghminA, TallmanC, CreightonT, CrossleyH, et al.Health-related quality of life outcomes after robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy using a validated bladder-specific instrument: A multi-institutional study. Urology, 2014; 83:1300–1308.
23.
AbrahamJBA, YoungJL, BoxGN, LeeHJ, DeaneLA, OrnsteinDK. Comparative analysis of laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical cystectomy with ileal conduit urinary diversion. J Endourol, 2007; 21:1473–1480.
24.
AndersonCB, MorganTM, KappaS, MooreD, ClarkPE, DavisR, et al.Ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures after radical cystectomy—Does operative approach matter?. J Urol, 2013; 189:541–547.
25.
BochnerBH, SjobergDD, LaudoneVP. A randomized trial of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. N Engl J Med, 2014; 371:389–390.
26.
GalichA, SterrettS, NazemiT, PohlmanG, SmithL, BalajiK. Comparative analysis of early perioperative outcomes following radical cystectomy by either the robotic or open method. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg, 2006; 10:145–150.
27.
GondoT, YoshiokaK, NakagamiY, OkuboH, HashimotoT, SatakeN, et al.Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: Prospective comparison of perioperative and pathologic outcomes in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2012; 42:625–631.
28.
GuruK, WildingG, PiacenteP, ThompsonJ, DengW, KimH, et al.Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: Assessment of postoperative pain. Can J Urol, 2007; 14:3753–3756.
29.
KaderAK, RichardsKA, KraneLS, PettusJA, SmithJJ, HemalAK. Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy: Comparison of complications and perioperative oncological outcomes in 200 patients. BJU Int, 2013; 112:E290–E294.
30.
KhanM, ChallacombeB, ElhageO, RimingtonP, CokerB, MurphyD, et al.A dual-centre, cohort comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. Int J Clin Pract, 2012; 66:656–662.
31.
KnoxML, El-GalleyR, BusbyJE. Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: Identification of patients who benefit from the robotic approach. J Endourol, 2013; 27:40–44.
32.
MuschM, JanowskiM, StevesA, RoggenbuckU, BoergersA, DavoudiY, et al.Comparison of early postoperative morbidity after robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy: Results of a prospective observational study. BJU Int, 2014; 113:458–467.
33.
NeppleKG, StropeSA, GrubbRL, KibelAS (eds). Early oncologic outcomes of robotic vs. open radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer. Urol Oncol, 2013; 31:894–898.
34.
NgCK, KauffmanEC, LeeM-M, OttoBJ, PortnoffA, EhrlichJR, et al.A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol, 2010; 57:274–282.
35.
NixJ, SmithA, KurpadR, NielsenME, WallenEM, PruthiRS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol, 2010; 57:196–201.
36.
RheeJJ, LebeauS, SmolkinM, TheodorescuD. Radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion: Early prospective evaluation of the impact of robotic assistance. BJU Int, 2006; 98:1059–1063.
37.
StynNR, MontgomeryJS, WoodDP, HafezKS, LeeCT, TallmanC, et al.Matched comparison of robotic-assisted and open radical cystectomy. Urology, 2012; 79:1303–1309.
38.
SungHH, AhnJ-S, SeoSI, JeonSS, ChoiHY, LeeHM, et al.A comparison of early complications between open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy. J Endourol, 2012; 26:670–675.
39.
KooKC, YoonYE, ChungBH, HongSJ, RhaKH. Analgesic opioid dose is an important indicator of postoperative ileus following radical cystectomy with ileal conduit: Experience in the robotic surgery era. Yonsei Med J, 2014; 55:1359–1365.
40.
TrentmanTL, FassettSL, McGirrD, AndersonB, ChangY-HH, NaterasRN, et al.Comparison of anesthetic management and outcomes of robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy. J Robot Surg, 2013; 7:273–279.
AhdootM, AlmarioL, ArayaH, BuschJ, ContiS, GonzalgoML. Oncologic outcomes between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: A propensity score matched analysis. World J Urol, 2014; 32:1441–1446.
43.
NiegischG, AlbersP, RabenaltR (eds). Perioperative complications and oncological safety of robot-assisted (RARC) vs. open radical cystectomy (ORC). Urol Oncol, 2014; 32:966–974.
44.
AtmacaAF, CandaAE, GokB, AkbulutZ, AltinovaS, BalbayMD. Open versus robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal studer diversion. JSLS, 2014; 19;e2014.00193.
45.
MesserJC, PunnenS, FitzgeraldJ, SvatekR, ParekhDJ. Health-related quality of life from a prospective randomised clinical trial of robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy. BJU Int, 2014; 114:896–902.
46.
NovaraG, CattoJW, WilsonT, AnnerstedtM, ChanK, MurphyDG, et al.Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol, 2015; 67:376–401.
47.
NovaraG, De MarcoV, AragonaM, Boscolo-BertoR, CavalleriS, ArtibaniW, et al.Complications and mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder transitional cell cancer. J Urol, 2009; 182:914–921.
48.
StimsonC, ChangSS, BarocasDA, HumphreyJE, PatelSG, ClarkPE, et al.Early and late perioperative outcomes following radical cystectomy: 90-Day readmissions, morbidity and mortality in a contemporary series. J Urol, 2010; 184:1296–1300.
49.
SvatekRS, FisherMB, MatinSF, KamatAM, GrossmanHB, Nogueras-GonzálezGM, et al.Risk factor analysis in a contemporary cystectomy cohort using standardized reporting methodology and adverse event criteria. J Urol, 2010; 183:929–934.
50.
SmithND, CastleEP, GonzalgoML, SvatekRS, WeizerAZ, MontgomeryJS, et al.The RAZOR (randomized open vs robotic cystectomy) trial: Study design and trial update. BJU Int, 2015; 115:198–205.
51.
DanglePP, AbazaR. Robot-assisted repair of ureteroileal anastomosis strictures: Initial cases and literature review. J Endourol, 2012; 26:372–376.
52.
SchumacherMC, JonssonMN, WiklundNP. Does extended lymphadenectomy preclude laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical cystectomy in advanced bladder cancer?. Curr Opin Urol, 2009; 19:527–532.
53.
ChadeDC, LaudoneVP, BochnerBH, ParraRO. Oncological outcomes after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Open versus minimally invasive approaches. J Urol, 2010; 183:862–870.
54.
LiK, LinT, FanX, XuK, BiL, DuanY, et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting early outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy. Cancer Treat Rev, 2013; 39:551–560.
55.
TangK, XiaD, LiH, GuanW, GuoX, HuZ, et al.Robotic vs. open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2014; 40:1399–1411.
56.
FonsekaT, AhmedK, FroghiS, KhanSA, DasguptaP, KhanMS. Comparing robotic, laparoscopic and open cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl, 2015; 87:41–48.
57.
XiaL, WangX, XuT, ZhangX, ZhuZ, QinL, et al.Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One, 2015; 10:e0121032.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
