Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Robotic versus Open Radical Cystectomy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Leilei Xia ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Leilei Xia, Xianjin Wang, Tianyuan Xu

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Xianjin Wang ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Leilei Xia, Xianjin Wang, Tianyuan Xu

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Tianyuan Xu ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Leilei Xia, Xianjin Wang, Tianyuan Xu

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Xiaohua Zhang,

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Zhaowei Zhu,

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Liang Qin,

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Xiang Zhang,

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Chen Fang,

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Minguang Zhang,

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Shan Zhong,

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

  • Zhoujun Shen

    shzj6@sina.com

    Affiliation Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P. R. China

Robotic versus Open Radical Cystectomy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Leilei Xia, 
  • Xianjin Wang, 
  • Tianyuan Xu, 
  • Xiaohua Zhang, 
  • Zhaowei Zhu, 
  • Liang Qin, 
  • Xiang Zhang, 
  • Chen Fang, 
  • Minguang Zhang, 
  • Shan Zhong
PLOS
x

Abstract

Objective

To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with open radical cystectomy (ORC).

Methods

A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in April 2014. All relevant studies comparing RARC with ORC were included for further screening. A pooled meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.

Results

Nineteen studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 1779 patients (787 patients in the RARC group and 992 patients in the ORC group). Although RARC was associated with longer operative time (p <0.0001), patients in this group might benefit from significantly lower overall perioperative complication rates within 30 days and 90 days (p = 0.005 and 0.0002, respectively), more lymph node yields (p = 0.009), less estimated blood loss (p <0.00001), lower need for perioperative and intraoperative transfusions (p <0.0001 and <0.0001, respectively), and shorter postoperative length of stay (p = 0.0002). There was no difference between two groups regarding positive surgical margin rates (p = 0.19).

Conclusions

RARC appears to be an efficient alternative to ORC with advantages of less perioperative complications, more lymph node yields, less estimated blood loss, lower need for transfusions, and shorter postoperative length of stay. Further studies should be performed to compare the long-term oncologic outcomes between RARC and ORC.

Introduction

Radical cystectomy (RC) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) are the standard treatments for muscle invasive and high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer [1]. Open radical cystectomy (ORC) is a procedure that has been troubled with high rates of perioperative complication and mortality [2]. Minimally invasive surgeries, such as laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) have been applied increasingly with the goal of decreasing perioperative morbidity and mortality. Menon et al. [3] reported the first series of RARC in 2003 and demonstrated its safety and feasibility. Since then, especially in the latest 5 years, RARC has gained its popularity and achieved decent long-term oncologic outcomes [4,5]. As to comparative analysis of complication rates and perioperative outcomes between RARC and ORC, different studies showed controversial results [620]. In 2012, Li et al. [21] conducted a systematic review of literatures, with a meta-analysis of the results to compare RARC with ORC. The analysis of complication rates in their meta-analysis, however, were relatively sketchy because the authors did not take fully account of complication grades and postoperative period. Besides, some high-quality studies, including a randomized controlled trial (RCT), have been reported since 2012 [2225]. Therefore, we performed an updated meta-analysis of literatures comparing complication rates and perioperative outcomes of RARC with those of ORC.

Methods

Search strategy and study selection

A literature search was performed in the electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Language was restricted to English. The following terms and their combinations were searched in [Title/Abstract]: cystectomy, bladder resection, robotic, robot, robot-assisted, and da Vinci. The last updated search was performed on April 10, 2014. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria [26]. Cited references from the selected articles were manually searched and assessed. The following inclusion criteria were used: (i) studies comparing RARC with ORC; (ii) at least one of the quantitative outcomes were included; and (iii) RCT, prospective or retrospective comparative study design. Review articles, case reports, editorials, comments, letters to the editor, and conference abstracts were excluded.

Data extraction and outcomes of interest

Two reviewers (X. W. and T. X.) independently extracted and summarized the following data from the included studies: authors, publication year, country, study design, matching factors (age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, diversion type, clinical stage, Charlson index, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, previous abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy, previous pelvic/abdominal surgery, and numbers of surgeon), and outcomes of interest. The outcomes of interest were perioperative complication rates within 30 days or 90 days of the date of surgery and other perioperative outcomes. Complications were classified into grade 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system [27]. Other perioperative outcomes were positive surgical margin (PSM; including urethral/ureteric and soft tissue PSM) rates, lymph node yields (LNY), operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion (including perioperative and intraoperative transfusion) rates, and postoperative length of stay (LOS). Any disagreements were resolved by discussion until a consensus was reached.

Study quality assessment

The level of evidence (LOE) of included studies was rated according to the criteria provided by the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine [28]. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational comparative studies [29] and Jadad scale for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [30,31]. The NOS evaluates the quality of studies by examining three aspects of the study design: patient selection, comparability of the study groups, and assessment of outcomes. A score of 0 to 9 may be given to individual studies. Studies achieving a score of 7 or more indicate a high quality. Jadad scale is a 5-point scale and a score of 2 or less indicates low quality while 3 or more high quality. Two reviewers (X. W. and T. X.) independently assessed the quality of the studies and disagreement was resolved by consensus.

Statistical analysis

The meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager Version 5.2 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford). The weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratios (ORs) were used to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. All results were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For studies presenting continuous data as median and range or interquartile range, the means and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated using the methodology described by Hozo et al. [32] in keeping with Cochrane handbook [33]. Statistical heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the chi-squared (χ2) test with a P value of <0.1 considered to indicate statistical significance, and heterogeneity was quantified using the inconsistency (I2) statistic. A random-effect model was used for outcomes that displayed significant heterogeneity with I2 values >50%; otherwise, the fixed-effect model was used. To evaluate the difference in results from studies with surgeon have greater experience in RARC, subgroup analysis of studies with more than 50 RARC cases was also performed. The outcomes of subgroup analysis include overall complication rates within 30 days and 90 days, PSM rates, LNY, OT, EBL, and LOS. Publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot.

Results

Characteristics and methodological quality of included studies

The literature search yielded 585 studies, of which 19 were selected in the final analysis including 1779 cases (787 cases for RARC and 992 cases for ORC) (Fig 1) [619,2225]. Three [6,9,12] and another three [8,10,25] publications shared overlapping populations but had some different outcomes. The characteristics of included studies are summarized in Table 1. As for urinary diversion, sixteen adopted the extracorporeal method [6,7,917,20,2225]. Similar neobladders were reconstructed between RARC and ORC groups (131 of 593 vs 125 of 654 in thirteen studies [6,7,914,16,17,2325] (p = 0.08).

thumbnail
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies and quality assessment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.t001

There were two RCTs comparing the two procedures [11,22] (evidence level: 2b). Ten observational studies declared prospective data collection [6,810,1315,18,19,23] and seven were retrospective studies [7,12,16,17,20,24,25]. All observational comparative studies had evidence level 3. Thirteen of them had a score of ≥ 7 and were considered high quality.

Meta-Analysis Results

1. Complications.

Pooled data of five studies that assessed overall perioperative complications within 30 days in 575 patients showed significantly lower complication rate in the RARC group (OR: 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44–0.86; p = 0.005) (Table 2 and Fig 2). Overall perioperative complications within 90 days were available in 761 patients from other five studies, the pooled analysis of which also showed significantly lower complication rate in the RARC group (OR: 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17–0.57; p = 0.0002) (Table 2 and Fig 2).

thumbnail
Table 2. Complication rates comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy with open radical cystectomy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.t002

thumbnail
Fig 2. Forest plots of overall complication rates.

(a) within 30 days; (b) within 90 days.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.g002

Overall perioperative complications were further divided into grade 1 to 5 in studies with detailed data. Within 30 days, there was no significant difference in grade 1, 2 and 3 complication rates between two groups (p = 0.13, 0.23, and 0.40, respectively), but significantly lower grade 4 complication rate were observed in the RARC group (p = 0.04) (Table 2 and Fig 3). Within 90 days, there was no significant difference in grade 1 and 2 complication rates (p = 0.83 and 0.10, respectively), but grade 3 and 4 complication rates were significantly lower in the RARC group (p = 0.001 and 0.004, respectively) (Table 2 and Fig 4). Perioperative mortality (grade 5 complication) rates within 30 days and 90 days were similar between the two groups (p = 0.55 and 0.23, respectively) (Table 2, Fig 3 and Fig 4).

thumbnail
Fig 3. Forest plots of perioperative complication rates divided into Clavien grade 1–5 within 30 days.

(a) grade 1; (b) grade 2; (c) grade 3; (d) grade 4; (5) grade 5.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.g003

thumbnail
Fig 4. Forest plots of perioperative complication rates divided into Clavien grade 1–5 within 90 days.

(a) grade 1; (b) grade 2; (c) grade 3; (d) grade 4; (5) grade 5.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.g004

2. PSM and LNY.

Pooled data of nine studies that assessed overall PSM rates in 918 patients showed no significant difference between RARC and ORC groups (p = 0.19) (Table 3 and Fig 5). Urethral/ureteric and soft tissue PSM rates were assessed in three studies, and there was no significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.51 and 0.38, respectively) (Table 3 and Fig 5). Pooling data of thirteen studies that counted LNY in 1500 patients showed significantly more LNY in RARC than the ORC group (WMD: 2.98; 95% CI, 0.74–5.22; p = 0.009) (Table 3 and Fig 6).

thumbnail
Table 3. Perioperative outcomes comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy with open radical cystectomy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.t003

3. OT, EBL, transfusion and LOS.

Pooled data of nine studies including 1047 patients showed significantly longer OT in the RARC than the ORC group (WMD: 73.92; 95% CI, 37.18–110.67; p < 0.0001) (Table 3 and Fig 7). Pooled data of ten studies including 1189 patients that evaluated EBL showed significantly lower blood loss in the RARC than the ORC group (WMD: -47.39; 95% CI, -65.13 –-29.65; p < 0.00001) (Table 3 and Fig 8). Pooed data of seven studies including 826 patients that evaluated perioperative transfusion rates showed significantly lower rate in the RARC than the ORC group (p < 0.0001) (Table 3 and Fig 9). Pooed data of three studies including 241 patients that evaluated intraoperative transfusion rates showed significantly lower rate in the RARC than the ORC group (p < 0.0001) (Table 3 and Fig 9). Pooled data of ten studies including 1247 patients that evaluated LOS showed significantly shorter LOS in the RARC group (WMD: -3.16; 95% CI, -4.84 –-1.48; p < 0.0001) (Table 3 and Fig 10).

thumbnail
Fig 9. Forest plots of transfusions.

(a) perioperative transfusion; (b) intraoperative transfusion.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.g009

4. Subgroup analysis.

Five studies with more than 50 RARC cases were included for subgroup analysis [10,20,2325] (Fig 11). It continued to demonstrate lower overall complication rates within 30 days (WMD: 0.46; 95% CI, 0.29–0.72; p = 0.0006) and 90 days (WMD: 0.34; 95% CI, 0.18–0.66; p = 0.001) in RARC group. No significant difference in PSM rates between two groups was observed (WMD: 0.94; 95% CI, 0.52–1.67; p = 0.82). More LNY (WMD: 5.47; 95% CI, 1.68–9.26; p = 0.005), longer OT (WMD: 46.85; 95% CI, 22.60–71.09; p = 0.0002), less EBL (WMD: -60.85; 95% CI, -77.28 –-44.42; p < 0.00001), and shorter LOS (WMD: -3.05; 95% CI, -4.70 –-1.39; p = 0.0003) were observed in the RARC group.

thumbnail
Fig 11. Subgroup analysis including studies with more than 50 robotic cases.

(a) overall complication rates within 30 days; (b) overall complication rates within 90 days; (c) positive surgical margin rates; (d) lymph nodes yields; (e) operative time; (f) estimated blood loss; (g) length of stay.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.g011

5. Publication bias.

Fig 12 shows funnel plots of the studies included in this meta-analysis reporting perioperative complication rates within 30 days. All studies lie inside the 95% CIs, with an even distribution around the vertical, indicating no obvious publication bias.

thumbnail
Fig 12. Funnel plots of the studies included in this meta-analysis reporting overall complication rates within 30 days.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121032.g012

Discussion

Currently, RARC are being increasingly adopted for the treatment of muscle invasive and high risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Li et al. [21] conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in 2012, with the goal of comparing RARC with ORC in terms of perioperative surgical and oncologic outcomes. However, in that study, the authors did not take fully account of the complication grades and postoperative period. Besides, some high-quality studies comparing RARC with ORC have been reported since 2012. We thus performed an updated systemic review and meta-analysis. In this review, nineteen studies, including two RCTs, ten prospective and seven retrospective studies, were included. Pooled data indicated significantly lower overall perioperative complication rates within 30 days and 90 days, more LNY, longer OT, less EBL, lower perioperative and intraoperative transfusion rates, and shorter LOS in the RARC than the ORC group.

RC is a highly challenging operation with relatively high risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, perioperative complication rate is an important evaluation indicator for this procedure. As the reporting methods of complications were various and nonstandardized among the included studies, especially the postoperative period, we thus pooled data of complication rates within 30 days and 90 days postoperatively. Moreover, we also analyzed the complication rates using the Clavien grading system. Overall perioperative complication rates within 30 days and 90 days were significantly lower in the RARC group. After grading complications, grade 4 complication rate was significantly lower in the RARC group within 30 days, and grade 3–4 complication rates were significantly lower in the RARC group within 90 days. The results indicates that RARC might be safer compared to ORC, especially in the long term. Of all the included studies, Ng et al. [10] reported their complications using a more standard method with detailed data. Their results showed that RARC was an independent predictor of fewer overall and major complications within 30 days and 90 days postoperatively, and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (3–4) as well as longer surgical time were independent predictors of major complications [10]. The lower complication rates in RARC group may be related to lower EBL and minimally invasive approach. Given that patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer are often elderlies with comorbidities, the lower complication rates may suggest that RARC is a better modality selection. Phillips et al. [34] concluded that RARC should be considered for patients over the age of 80 with clinical indications for RC and complication rates were acceptable even in patients with multiple comorbidities as well as those with previous abdominal surgery or pelvic radiation. Knox et al. [24] reported that RARC was superior in patients older than 70 even when compared to a younger cohort undergoing ORC. Several other studies also showed that RARC can be offered as treatment option in selected older patients [35,36].

With regard to oncologic outcomes, like most of the included studies, we used PSM rates and LNY to evaluate efficacy of RARC and ORC. PSM rate of RC are associated with progression to metastatic disease and unfavorable survival in patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer [37,38]. Our study showed that there was no difference between RARC and ORC in terms of overall unspecified PSM rates, urethral/ureteric and soft tissue PSM rates. The overall PSM rates in RARC and ORC groups were 5.7% and 8.8%, respectively, which were comparable with other RARC and ORC series [39,40]. A propensity score matched analysis showed that RARC had a lower soft tissue PSM rate compared to ORC [20]. We should cautiously draw a conclusion like RARC having equivalent PSM rate compared to ORC because PSM was highly correlated with pathological stage and selection bias did exist in some of the included studies.

Another important indicator of surgical quality of RC is LNY. Although more lymph nodes were yielded in RARC from our meta-analysis, two RCTs showed no significant difference between the two techniques. So we can only draw a conclusion of the noninferiority of robotic approach regarding lymph node dissection. Indeed, LNY in RARC is correlated with various factors, like surgeon volumes, institution volumes [41] and learning curve [42]. The data from International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC) showed robot-assisted lymph node dissection can achieve similar LNY to those of open lymph node dissection after RC [41]. Davis et al. [43] concluded that robot assisted pelvic lymph node dissection yielded of 93% of that of open surgery by using second look open dissection method. In summary, with the three dimensional visualization and flexible instruments, RARC is expected to achieve similar oncologic outcomes to ORC after the learning curve.

The longer OT in the RARC group may due to the initial small surgeon volumes and learning curve impact. With the increasing surgical skills and better team cooperation, the OT of RARC is expected to be diminished in some degree. Our subgroup analysis indirectly suggested that OT difference between ORC and RARC was smaller for robotic cases more than 50. Several included studies reported that OT of RARC decreased when surgeon volumes increased [7,15,16]. The longer OT in RARC group can also be attributed to the extra operative steps associated with the trocar placement, docking and undocking of the robot, and conversion to extracorporeal urinary diversion [23]. Moreover, RC itself is a time-consuming operation. In the largest comparative study, the mean OT in the RARC group and ORC group were 6.25 hours and 5.95 hours, respectively [10]. Small OT gap between RARC and ORC may be not as important as other outcome differences. Besides, the lower complication rates, lower EBL as well as shorter LOS in the RARC group could easily balance the small difference with the OT.

This meta-analysis showed significant less EBL and a lower need for transfusion in the RARC group. The markedly lower blood loss in the RARC group can probably be explained by the effect of the pneumoperitoneum and more precise coagulation of bleeding vessels achieved through three dimensional visual field and flexible instruments [23,44]. Learning curve also have effects on the EBL [15,45]. Less blood loss may be a valuable finding because EBL and transfusion requirements is correlated with complications [4649].

Learning curve, which has some influences on surgical outcomes, is an essential parameter to evaluate for an emerging technique like RARC. First of all, compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic assistance greatly reduces the learning curve for minimally invasive pelvic procedures like RC [50]. Pruthi et al. [45] described the learning curve of RARC and found initial 25 cases did have longer OT and more EBL than latter cases, but no compromises were observed with regard to complications and oncologic parameters like PSM rates and LNY. RARC can be performed safely without compromising operative, postoperative, and short-term pathologic outcomes during the learning curve for surgeons who are experienced in ORC [51]. However, for younger surgeons who have not received much ORC training, it is imperative to start with easier robotic surgeries. Guru et al. [52] highly recommended mastering robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) before attempting RARC. IRCC demonstrated an acceptable level of proficiency by the 30th case for proxy measures of RARC quality [53]. This could be a guidance for younger surgeons and their trainers.

Different financial incentives for hospital discharge exist among healthcare systems or countries [23]. The significantly shorter LOS in the RARC group is worth mentioning given that most of the included studies came from USA. Shorter LOS may due to the less invasive approach and lower complication rates. However, neither of the RCTs showed any difference despite RARC group had a trend toward fewer prolonged hospitalizations (LOS greater than 5 days) [11,22]. Whether the lower complication rates and shorter LOS in the RARC group can lead to a potential benefit in quality of life (QOL) is another considerable question. One of the included RCTs reported their QOL outcomes in a different paper, in which QOL was assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Vanderbilt Cystectomy Index (FACT–VCI) questionnaire preoperatively and then at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months postoperatively [22,54]. The results showed a slightly higher physical well-being score in the RARC group at 6 months, but no difference was observed in other domains [54]. Guru at al [55] reported that patients who had RARC required less opiates postoperatively compared to those who had ORC, although both groups achieved similar pain control. However, another study showed better sexual functions in the ORC group over time [56]. Given that there is still lack of standardization of QOL measures and much of the studies were retrospective or had small sample size, larger RCTs with standard outcomes are needed to characterize QOL difference between RARC and ORC.

Cost analysis between two groups, although was not one of our outcomes, deserves to be discussed because health care cost control is one of the most essential topics in modern era [57]. Smith et al. [58] concluded that RARC was associated with a higher financial cost (+$1,640) than ORC in the perioperative setting. However, they excluded the analysis of hospital medication cost, as well indirect cost of complications. Another study performed a cost-analysis between RARC and ORC using a model, which included both direct and indirect cost of 30-day complications and hospital medications [18]. Interestingly, actual total patient costs revealed a 38% cost advantage favoring RARC due to increased hospitalization costs for ORC and higher complication rates [18]. The cost benefit of RARC was also observed in the largest cohort study [10,59]. Various factors, such as hospital volume, LOS, OT, morbidity, and complexity of urinary diversion, can influence the cost. All we can expect is large RCTs between the two surgical approaches and hope they can effectively assess whether a cost benefit does exist.

Although RARC has its advantages, ORC is still an important and indispensable procedure for urologist to learn. Even in USA, which is equipped with the largest number of robotic surgical system in the world, RARC is only a small portion of total RC cases. Data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in 2009 to 2011 showed that RARC accounted for about 12.6% of all RC cases [60]. ORC will still be the gold standard for muscle invasive bladder cancer in the short and medium term. Like all other surgeries, ORC training can help younger surgeons to be familiar with anatomic structure directly. Besides, surgical skills and experience from open cases are essential because all surgeons have to be prepared for intraoperative conversion during any minimally invasive procedures.

There are certain limitations to be considered in the present review and meta-analysis. The main limitation is that most of the included studies were observational studies except two RCTs, both of which used inappropriate randomization method and had limited number of patients (40 and 41, respectively) [11,22]. Overall, studies included in the analysis had small patient cohorts. Ten out of nineteen studies had less than 100 patients. Secondly, some of the included studies probably had the risk of selection bias which might limit the power of this meta-analysis. However, our study has relatively large sample size and standard data extraction and analysis. Our conclusions thus could provide guidance for both urologists and healthcare policy makers.

Conclusions

Nineteen studies assessing RARC versus ORC were included for this meta-analysis. The results indicated that RARC may be associated with lower overall perioperative complication rates within 30 days and 90 days, lower grade 3 perioperative complication rate within 30 days, lower grade 3 and 4 perioperative complication rates within 90 days, more LNY, longer OT, less EBL, lower need for transfusion and shorter LOS. Conclusively, RARC appears to be a safer, less invasive procedure with same efficacy when compared with ORC. In spite of our rigorous methodological review, limitations of the included studies imposed restrictions on us to draw definite conclusions. Large cohort studies and well-designed RCTs with longer follow-up are needed to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: ZS LX XW TX. Performed the experiments: LX XW TX. Analyzed the data: LX XW TX. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LX XW TX Xiaohua Z. ZZ LQ Xiang Z. CF MZ SZ ZS. Wrote the paper: LX XW TX. Proofreading: XW TX Xiaohua Z. ZZ LQ Xiang Z. CF MZ SZ ZS.

References

  1. 1. Stenzl A, Cowan NC, De Santis M, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, et al. (2011) Treatment of muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: update of the EAU guidelines. Eur Urol 59: 1009–1018. pmid:21454009
  2. 2. Lawrentschuk N, Colombo R, Hakenberg OW, Lerner SP, Mansson W, et al. (2010) Prevention and management of complications following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol 57: 983–1001. pmid:20227172
  3. 3. Menon M, Hemal AK, Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Shoma AM, et al. (2003) Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion. BJU Int 92: 232–236. pmid:12887473
  4. 4. Snow-Lisy DC, Campbell SC, Gill IS, Hernandez AV, Fergany A, et al. (2014) Robotic and Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes. Eur Urol 65: 193–200. pmid:24018019
  5. 5. Khan MS, Elhage O, Challacombe B, Murphy D, Coker B, et al. (2013) Long-term outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol 64: 219–224. pmid:23395594
  6. 6. Galich A, Sterrett S, Nazemi T, Pohlman G, Smith L, et al. (2006) Comparative analysis of early perioperative outcomes following radical cystectomy by either the robotic or open method. JSLS 10: 145–150. pmid:16882409
  7. 7. Pruthi RS, Wallen EM (2007) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystoprostatectomy: operative and pathological outcomes. J Urol 178: 814–818. pmid:17631334
  8. 8. Sterrett S, Mammen T, Nazemi T, Galich A, Peters G, et al. (2007) Major urological oncological surgeries can be performed using minimally invasive robotic or laparoscopic methods with similar early perioperative outcomes compared to conventional open methods. World J Urol 25: 193–198. pmid:17171562
  9. 9. Wang GJ, Barocas DA, Raman JD, Scherr DS (2008) Robotic vs open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative outcomes and pathological measures of early oncological efficacy. BJU Int 101: 89–93. pmid:17888044
  10. 10. Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM, Otto BJ, Portnoff A, et al. (2010) A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol 57: 274–281. pmid:19560255
  11. 11. Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, et al. (2010) Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol 57: 196–201. pmid:19853987
  12. 12. Richards KA, Hemal AK, Kader AK, Pettus JA (2010) Robot assisted laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy at the time of radical cystectomy rivals that of open surgery: single institution report. Urology 76: 1400–1404. pmid:20350755
  13. 13. Gondo T, Yoshioka K, Nakagami Y, Okubo H, Hashimoto T, et al. (2012) Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative and pathologic outcomes in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 42: 625–631. pmid:22581913
  14. 14. Khan MS, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Rimington P, Coker B, et al. (2012) A dual-centre, cohort comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. Int J Clin Pract 66: 656–662. pmid:22507234
  15. 15. Styn NR, Montgomery JS, Wood DP, Hafez KS, Lee CT, et al. (2012) Matched comparison of robotic-assisted and open radical cystectomy. Urology 79: 1303–1308. pmid:22516354
  16. 16. Sung HH, Ahn JS, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Choi HY, et al. (2012) A comparison of early complications between open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy. J Endourol 26: 670–675. pmid:22011001
  17. 17. Nepple KG, Strope SA, Grubb RL 3rd, Kibel AS (2013) Early oncologic outcomes of robotic vs. open radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer. Urol Oncol 31: 894–898. pmid:21803615
  18. 18. Martin AD, Nunez RN, Castle EP (2011) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a complete cost analysis. Urology 77: 621–625. pmid:21122900
  19. 19. Abaza R, Dangle PP, Gong MC, Bahnson RR, Pohar KS (2012) Quality of lymphadenectomy is equivalent with robotic and open cystectomy using an extended template. J Urol 187: 1200–1204. pmid:22341295
  20. 20. Ahdoot M, Almario L, Araya H, Busch J, Conti S, et al. (2014) Oncologic outcomes between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: a propensity score matched analysis. World J Urol. pmid:24469858
  21. 21. Li K, Lin T, Fan X, Xu K, Bi L, et al. (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies reporting early outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy. Cancer Treat Rev 39: 551–560. pmid:23273846
  22. 22. Parekh DJ, Messer J, Fitzgerald J, Ercole B, Svatek R (2013) Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol 189: 474–479. pmid:23017529
  23. 23. Musch M, Janowski M, Steves A, Roggenbuck U, Boergers A, et al. (2014) Comparison of early postoperative morbidity after robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy: results of a prospective observational study. BJU Int.113:458–467. pmid:24053793
  24. 24. Knox ML, El-Galley R, Busby JE (2013) Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: identification of patients who benefit from the robotic approach. J Endourol 27: 40–44. pmid:22788707
  25. 25. Kader AK, Richards KA, Krane LS, Pettus JA, Smith JJ, et al. (2013) Robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy: comparison of complications and perioperative oncological outcomes in 200 patients. BJU Int 112: E290–294. pmid:23815802
  26. 26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097. pmid:19621072
  27. 27. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240: 205–213. pmid:15273542
  28. 28. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, et al. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. Available: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 10 April 2014.
  29. 29. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 10 April 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0002195 pmid:23658850
  30. 30. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, et al. (1995) Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16: 62–73. pmid:7743790
  31. 31. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1–12. pmid:8721797
  32. 32. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5: 13. pmid:15840177
  33. 33. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available: www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 10 April 2014.
  34. 34. Phillips E, Uberoi V, Tuerk I (2014) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy in octogenarians. J Endourol 28:219–223. pmid:24074288
  35. 35. Guillotreau J, Miocinovic R, Game X, Forest S, Malavaud B, et al. (2012) Outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic radical cystectomy in the elderly patients. Urology 79: 585–590. pmid:22386404
  36. 36. Coward RM, Smith A, Raynor M, Nielsen M, Wallen EM, et al. (2011) Feasibility and outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in older patients. Urology 77: 1111–1114. pmid:21333341
  37. 37. Dotan ZA, Kavanagh K, Yossepowitch O, Kaag M, Olgac S, et al. (2007) Positive surgical margins in soft tissue following radical cystectomy for bladder cancer and cancer specific survival. J Urol 178: 2308–2313. pmid:17936804
  38. 38. Hadjizacharia P, Stein JP, Cai J, Miranda G (2009) The impact of positive soft tissue surgical margins following radical cystectomy for high-grade, invasive bladder cancer. World J Urol 27: 33–38. pmid:19020884
  39. 39. Hellenthal NJ, Hussain A, Andrews PE, Carpentier P, Castle E, et al. (2010) Surgical margin status after robot assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. J Urol 184: 87–91. pmid:20478596
  40. 40. Novara G, Svatek RS, Karakiewicz PI, Skinner E, Ficarra V, et al. (2010) Soft tissue surgical margin status is a powerful predictor of outcomes after radical cystectomy: a multicenter study of more than 4,400 patients. J Urol 183: 2165–2170. pmid:20399473
  41. 41. Marshall SJ, Hayn MH, Stegemann AP, Agarwal PK, Badani KK, et al. (2013) Impact of surgeon and volume on extended lymphadenectomy at the time of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium (IRCC). BJU Int 111: 1075–1080. pmid:23442001
  42. 42. Hellenthal NJ, Hussain A, Andrews PE, Carpentier P, Castle E, et al. (2011) Lymphadenectomy at the time of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. BJU Int 107: 642–646. pmid:20575975
  43. 43. Davis JW, Gaston K, Anderson R, Dinney CP, Grossman HB, et al. (2011) Robot assisted extended pelvic lymphadenectomy at radical cystectomy: lymph node yield compared with second look open dissection. J Urol 185: 79–83. pmid:21074799
  44. 44. Azzouni F (2013) Current status of minimally invasive radical cystectomy: an outcome-based comparison. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 13: 681–695. pmid:23773103
  45. 45. Pruthi RS, Smith A, Wallen EM (2008) Evaluating the learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy. J Endourol 22: 2469–2474. pmid:19046088
  46. 46. Johar RS, Hayn MH, Stegemann AP, Ahmed K, Agarwal P, et al. (2013) Complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 64: 52–57. pmid:23380164
  47. 47. Bostrom PJ, Kossi J, Laato M, Nurmi M (2009) Risk factors for mortality and morbidity related to radical cystectomy. BJU Int 103: 191–196. pmid:18671789
  48. 48. Chang SS, Cookson MS, Baumgartner RG, Wells N, Smith JA Jr. (2002) Analysis of early complications after radical cystectomy: results of a collaborative care pathway. J Urol 167: 2012–2016. pmid:11956429
  49. 49. Kauffman EC, Ng CK, Lee MM, Otto BJ, Portnoff A, et al. (2010) Critical analysis of complications after robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with identification of preoperative and operative risk factors. BJU Int 105: 520–527. pmid:19735257
  50. 50. Abraham JB, Young JL, Box GN, Lee HJ, Deane LA, et al. (2007) Comparative analysis of laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical cystectomy with ileal conduit urinary diversion. J Endourol 21: 1473–1480. pmid:18186686
  51. 51. Richards KA, Kader K, Pettus JA, Smith JJ, Hemal AK (2011) Does initial learning curve compromise outcomes for robot-assisted radical cystectomy? A critical evaluation of the first 60 cases while establishing a robotics program. J Endourol 25: 1553–1558. pmid:21834656
  52. 52. Guru KA, Perlmutter AE, Butt ZM, Piacente P, Wilding GE, et al. (2009) The learning curve for robot-assisted radical cystectomy. JSLS 13: 509–514. pmid:20042129
  53. 53. Hayn MH, Hussain A, Mansour AM, Andrews PE, Carpentier P, et al. (2010) The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 58: 197–202. pmid:20434830
  54. 54. Messer JC, Punnen S, Fitzgerald J, Svatek R, Parekh DJ (2014) Health-related quality of life from a prospective randomised clinical trial of robot-assisted laparoscopic vs open radical cystectomy. BJU Int 114:896–902. pmid:24862633
  55. 55. Guru KA, Wilding GE, Piacente P, Thompson J, Deng W, et al. (2007) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: assessment of postoperative pain. Can J Urol 14: 3753–3756. pmid:18163928
  56. 56. Aboumohamed AA, Raza SJ, Al-Daghmin A, Tallman C, Creighton T, et al. (2014) Health-related quality of life outcomes after robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy using a validated bladder-specific instrument: a multi-institutional study. Urology 83: 1300–1308. pmid:24746661
  57. 57. Mmeje CO, Martin AD, Nunez-Nateras R, Parker AS, Thiel DD, et al. (2013) Cost analysis of open radical cystectomy versus robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Curr Urol Rep 14: 26–31. pmid:23184624
  58. 58. Smith A, Kurpad R, Lal A, Nielsen M, Wallen EM, et al. (2010) Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol 183: 505–509. pmid:20006882
  59. 59. Lee R, Ng CK, Shariat SF, Borkina A, Guimento R, et al. (2011) The economics of robotic cystectomy: cost comparison of open versus robotic cystectomy. BJU Int 108: 1886–1892. pmid:21501370
  60. 60. Monn MF, Cary KC, Kaimakliotis HZ, Flack CK, Koch MO (2014) National trends in the utilization of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: An analysis using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Urol Oncol 32:785–90. pmid:24863014