Intracorporeal ileal conduit versus orthotopic neobladder after robotic radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications and perioperative outcomes.

IF 0.9 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Siddharth Yadav, Rui Farinha, T K Aravind, Harshdeep Singh, Ankit Raheja, Pawan Vasudeva, Anup Kumar
{"title":"Intracorporeal ileal conduit versus orthotopic neobladder after robotic radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications and perioperative outcomes.","authors":"Siddharth Yadav, Rui Farinha, T K Aravind, Harshdeep Singh, Ankit Raheja, Pawan Vasudeva, Anup Kumar","doi":"10.4103/iju.iju_3_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to generate evidence on the complication rates between robot-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal ileal conduit (RARC ICIC) and RARC and intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder (RARC ICONB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed, and all the articles from inception up to June 30, 2024, were screened. Studies reporting on perioperative complications as per the Clavien-Dindo classification and comparing RARC ICIC with RARC ICONB were included. This systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 9 studies evaluating 999 patients were included in the final analysis, and all were retrospective analyses of prospectively maintained databases. The 30-day and 90-day complication rates, including the Clavien-Dindo I-II and III-V and the overall complication rate, were similar between RARC ICIC and RARC ICONB. RARC ICONB had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference - 69.62 min) and higher blood loss (weighted mean difference - 50.53 ml). Patients with stage pT4 and N1 were more in the RARC ICIC group as was the rate of positive surgical margin, which suggests an inherent selection bias while offering the procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review, which included only retrospective small-sized series, found that the 30-day and 90-day complication rates between RARC ICIC and RARC ICONB are similar; however, these results are marred by apparent selection bias while offering the procedure. Thus, larger, better-quality prospective randomized studies are required to provide high-quality evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47352,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Urology","volume":"41 3","pages":"166-175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312842/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_3_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to generate evidence on the complication rates between robot-assisted radical cystectomy and intracorporeal ileal conduit (RARC ICIC) and RARC and intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder (RARC ICONB).

Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed, and all the articles from inception up to June 30, 2024, were screened. Studies reporting on perioperative complications as per the Clavien-Dindo classification and comparing RARC ICIC with RARC ICONB were included. This systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

Results: A total of 9 studies evaluating 999 patients were included in the final analysis, and all were retrospective analyses of prospectively maintained databases. The 30-day and 90-day complication rates, including the Clavien-Dindo I-II and III-V and the overall complication rate, were similar between RARC ICIC and RARC ICONB. RARC ICONB had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference - 69.62 min) and higher blood loss (weighted mean difference - 50.53 ml). Patients with stage pT4 and N1 were more in the RARC ICIC group as was the rate of positive surgical margin, which suggests an inherent selection bias while offering the procedure.

Conclusion: This systematic review, which included only retrospective small-sized series, found that the 30-day and 90-day complication rates between RARC ICIC and RARC ICONB are similar; however, these results are marred by apparent selection bias while offering the procedure. Thus, larger, better-quality prospective randomized studies are required to provide high-quality evidence.

机器人根治性膀胱切除术后,体内回肠导管与原位新膀胱:并发症和围手术期结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
本研究旨在对机器人辅助根治性膀胱切除术联合体内回肠导管(RARC ICIC)和RARC联合体内原位新膀胱(RARC ICONB)的并发症发生率进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法:系统检索PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库,筛选从成立到2024年6月30日的所有文章。根据Clavien-Dindo分类报告围手术期并发症的研究,并比较RARC ICIC和RARC ICONB。本系统评价按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行。结果:最终分析共纳入9项研究,共评估999例患者,均为前瞻性维护数据库的回顾性分析。30天和90天的并发症发生率,包括Clavien-Dindo I-II和III-V以及总并发症发生率,在RARC ICIC和RARC ICONB之间相似。RARC ICONB手术时间较长(加权平均差值为69.62 min),出血量较高(加权平均差值为50.53 ml)。pT4期和N1期患者在RARC ICIC组中更多,手术切缘阳性率也更高,这表明在提供手术时存在固有的选择偏差。结论:本系统综述仅包括回顾性小型系列,发现RARC ICIC和RARC ICONB的30天和90天并发症发生率相似;然而,这些结果被明显的选择偏差所损害,同时提供程序。因此,需要更大规模、质量更好的前瞻性随机研究来提供高质量的证据。
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
Indian Journal of Urology
Indian Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊介绍: Indian Journal of Urology-IJU (ISSN 0970-1591) is official publication of the Urological Society of India. The journal is published Quarterly. Bibliographic listings: The journal is indexed with Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases, CAB Abstracts, Caspur, DOAJ, EBSCO Publishing’s Electronic Databases, Excerpta Medica / EMBASE, Expanded Academic ASAP, Genamics JournalSeek, Global Health, Google Scholar, Health & Wellness Research Center, Health Reference Center Academic, Hinari, Index Copernicus, IndMed, OpenJGate, PubMed, Pubmed Central, Scimago Journal Ranking, SCOLOAR, SCOPUS, SIIC databases, SNEMB, Tropical Diseases Bulletin, Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信