ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Renal transplant is the standard of care for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Robotic-assisted kidney transplant (RAKT) has emerged as a safe minimally invasive approach with a lower complication rate than open kidney transplant (OKT). Concerns regarding ischemia times and graft function are still a matter of debate. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42023413774, a systematic review was performed in March 2023 on RAKT compared to OKT. Primary outcomes of interest were surgical times, ischemia times, blood loss, complication rates, and graft function. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2. RESULTS: A total of nine studies comparing living donor RAKT to living donor OKT were included, totaling 1477 patients, out of which 508 underwent RAKT and 969 OKT. RAKT cases were highly selected as depicted in the manuscript. Cumulative analysis showed significantly longer total ischemic time (MD = 16.51; 95% CI = [9.86-23.16]) and rewarming ischemia time (MD = 11.24; 95% CI = [-0.46-22.01]) in RAKT group. No differences were found in total procedure time and time to complete anastomoses. Blood loss and transfusion rate were lower in RAKT group (MD = -53.68; 95% CI = [-89.78; -17.58]) and (RR = 0.29; 95% CI = [0.14; 0.57]), respectively. The meta-analysis revealed a lower rate of surgical site infection (SSI) (RR = 0.31; 95% CI = [0.19-0.52]) and symptomatic lymphocele (RR = 0.16; 95% CI = [0.06-0.43]) in RAKT. No difference in ileus rate was found. Pain scores were significantly lower in the RAKT group (MD = -1.14; 95% CI = [-1.59 - -0.69]; p ≤0.01). No difference in length of stay and hospital readmission were evidenced. Delayed graft function (DGF) and acute rejection rates were not different between interventions groups (RR =1.23; 95% CI = [0.40-3.74]) and (RR =0.96; 95% CI = [0.55-1.70]), respectively. No difference between groups in early graft outcomes are evident. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that RAKT is a minimally invasive, safe, and feasible procedure. It is associated with a lower complication rate and similar intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes. Further quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Subject(s)
Kidney Failure, Chronic , Kidney Transplantation , Robotic Surgical Procedures , Humans , Kidney Transplantation/methods , Living Donors , Robotic Surgical Procedures/methods , Kidney Failure, Chronic/surgery , IschemiaABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Radical prostatectomy is the standard of care for prostate cancer. Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) is being widely adopted due to positive functional outcomes compared to conventional robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (c-RARP). Concerns regarding potency, oncological outcomes, and learning curve are still a matter of debate. METHODS: Following Preferred Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42023398724, a systematic review was performed in February 2023 on RS-RARP compared to conventional c-RARP. Outcomes of interest were continence recovery, potency, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence (BCR), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), operation time and complications. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies were included, totaling 2751 patients, out of which 1221 underwent RS-RARP and 1530 underwent c-RARP. Continence was analyzed using two definitions: zero pad and one safety pad. Cumulative analysis showed with both definitions statistical difference in terms of continence recovery at 1 month (0 pad odds ratio [OR] = 4.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.32-15.77]; Safety pad OR = 13.19; 95% CI = [8.92-19.49]), as well as at 3 months (0 pad OR, 2.93; 95% CI = [1.57-5.46]; Safety pad OR = 5.31; 95% CI = [1.33-21.13]). Continence recovery at 12 months was higher in the one safety pad group after RS-RARP (OR = 4.37; 95% CI = [1.97-9.73]). The meta-analysis revealed that overall PSM rates without pathologic stage classification were not different following RS-RARP (OR = 1.13; 95% CI = [0.96-1.33]. Analysis according to the tumor stage revealed PSM rates in pT2 and pT3 tumors are not different following RS-RARP compared to c-RARP (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = [0.84-2.55]) and (OR = 1.41; 95% CI = [0.93-2.13]), respectively. No difference in potency at 12 months (OR = 0.98; 95% CI = [0.69-1.41], BCR at 12 months (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = [0.46-2.16]), EBL (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.01; 95% CI = [-0.31 to 0.29]), LOS (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI = [-0.48 to 0.45]), operation time (SMD = -0.14; 95% CI = [-0.41 to 0.12]) or complications (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = [0.62-1.29]) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that RS-RARP is safe and feasible. Faster continence recovery rate is seen after RS-RARP. Potency outcomes appear to be similar. PSM rates are not different following RS-RARP regardless of pathologic stage. Further quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.
