Open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation: Hospital charges analysis and outcomes at a single institution

Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review

To establish the feasibility of robotic surgical procedures in urology in terms of the applications, merits, and demerits as well as the postoperative and oncological outcomes while comparing it with the conventional approaches. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed to identify Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort studies on Robot-Assisted urological surgical procedures in comparison with the conventional methods. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the revised Cochrane "Risk of Bias" tool. A qualitative narrative synthesis of the data extracted from the studies was performed and presented in tabulated form. After screening, 39 studies were included in our review (7 Randomized Controlled Trials and 32 Cohort studies). Robot-Assisted Prostatectomy appears to be associated with lower estimated blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay. For Robot-Assisted Cystectomy, the results suggest longer operative time and fewer complications. Robot-Assisted Radical Nephrectomy was found to be associated with fewer perioperative complications and longer mean operative time while Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy was associated with less positive surgical margins and reduced need for postoperative analgesia. The mean operative time was longer while the length of stay was shorter for the robotic approach in inguinal lymphadenectomy and ureteral reimplantation. The feasibility of Robot-Assisted surgery varied for different outcome measures as well as for different procedures. Some common advantages were a shorter length of stay, lesser blood loss, and fewer complications while the drawbacks included longer operative time.Study protocol PROSPERO database (Registration Number: CRD42021256623).