Comparing the outcomes of robotic vs. open partial nephrectomy in obese patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Yan-Yan Wang, Zhen-Ni Xie, Yi-Qin Cao, Zhi-Kai Dai, Hong-Fang Ye
{"title":"Comparing the outcomes of robotic vs. open partial nephrectomy in obese patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review.","authors":"Yan-Yan Wang, Zhen-Ni Xie, Yi-Qin Cao, Zhi-Kai Dai, Hong-Fang Ye","doi":"10.1007/s11701-025-02237-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This meta-analysis examines and compares the perioperative results (such as complications, recovery, and other surgical outcomes) in obese patients who undergo either robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) or open partial nephrectomy (OPN). Essentially, the study is looking at how these two types of surgeries perform in obese patients, specifically focusing on outcomes related to the surgery process itself. We conducted a comprehensive search of major databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, focusing on English studies, up to November 2024. Review articles, research protocols without published data, conference abstracts, and irrelevant studies were excluded. We performed data analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models, followed by mean differences, inverse variance, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, and data with p values less than 0.05 were identified. This meta-analysis included three cohort studies with a total of 604 patients. Compared to OPN, RPN was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays (WMD  - 2.27, 95% CI  - 3.67 to  - 0.87; p = 0.002), lower overall complication rates (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.73; p = 0.0004), and reduced estimated blood loss (WMD  - 125.12, 95% CI  - 198.02 to  - 52.22; p = 0.0008). No significant differences were found between the two groups in transfusion rates, major complications, renal ischemia times, or operative times. RPN offers a safe and feasible option for obese patients compared to OPN, with advantages such as shorter hospital stays, reduced blood loss, and fewer overall complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"19 1","pages":"76"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02237-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta-analysis examines and compares the perioperative results (such as complications, recovery, and other surgical outcomes) in obese patients who undergo either robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) or open partial nephrectomy (OPN). Essentially, the study is looking at how these two types of surgeries perform in obese patients, specifically focusing on outcomes related to the surgery process itself. We conducted a comprehensive search of major databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, focusing on English studies, up to November 2024. Review articles, research protocols without published data, conference abstracts, and irrelevant studies were excluded. We performed data analysis using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method and random-effects models, followed by mean differences, inverse variance, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results were presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, and data with p values less than 0.05 were identified. This meta-analysis included three cohort studies with a total of 604 patients. Compared to OPN, RPN was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays (WMD  - 2.27, 95% CI  - 3.67 to  - 0.87; p = 0.002), lower overall complication rates (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.73; p = 0.0004), and reduced estimated blood loss (WMD  - 125.12, 95% CI  - 198.02 to  - 52.22; p = 0.0008). No significant differences were found between the two groups in transfusion rates, major complications, renal ischemia times, or operative times. RPN offers a safe and feasible option for obese patients compared to OPN, with advantages such as shorter hospital stays, reduced blood loss, and fewer overall complications.

比较肥胖患者机器人与开放式部分肾切除术的结果:荟萃分析和系统回顾。
本荟萃分析检查并比较了接受机器人辅助部分肾切除术(RPN)或开放式部分肾切除术(OPN)的肥胖患者的围手术期结果(如并发症、恢复和其他手术结果)。从本质上讲,这项研究是研究这两种手术在肥胖患者中的效果,特别关注与手术过程本身相关的结果。我们对主要数据库进行了全面的搜索,包括PubMed、Cochrane Library和Web of Science,重点关注英语研究,截止到2024年11月。综述文章、未发表数据的研究方案、会议摘要和不相关的研究被排除在外。我们使用Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel方法和随机效应模型进行数据分析,其次是均值差异、逆方差和95%置信区间(ci)。结果以比值比(or)和95% ci表示,并对p值小于0.05的资料进行鉴定。该荟萃分析包括三个队列研究,共604例患者。与OPN相比,RPN与较短的住院时间显著相关(WMD - 2.27, 95% CI - 3.67至- 0.87;p = 0.002),总并发症发生率较低(OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0.73;p = 0.0004),估计失血量减少(WMD - 125.12, 95% CI - 198.02 ~ - 52.22;p = 0.0008)。两组在输血率、主要并发症、肾缺血时间或手术时间方面无显著差异。与OPN相比,RPN为肥胖患者提供了一种安全可行的选择,具有住院时间短、失血少、并发症少等优点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
8.70%
发文量
145
期刊介绍: The aim of the Journal of Robotic Surgery is to become the leading worldwide journal for publication of articles related to robotic surgery, encompassing surgical simulation and integrated imaging techniques. The journal provides a centralized, focused resource for physicians wishing to publish their experience or those wishing to avail themselves of the most up-to-date findings.The journal reports on advance in a wide range of surgical specialties including adult and pediatric urology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, gynecology, ENT, orthopedics and neurosurgery.The use of robotics in surgery is broad-based and will undoubtedly expand over the next decade as new technical innovations and techniques increase the applicability of its use. The journal intends to capture this trend as it develops.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信