Comparing the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted, laparoscopic and open dismembered pyeloplasty: a Meta-analysis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2019.06.013
- VernacularTitle:离断性机器人辅助、腹腔镜和开放肾盂成形术治疗成人肾盂输尿管连接处梗阻疗效的Meta分析
- Author:
Zhongyu JIAN
1
;
Jixiang CHEN
;
Hong LI
;
Kunjie WANG
Author Information
1. 四川大学华西医院泌尿外科泌尿外科研究所(泌尿外科修复重建研究室)
- Keywords:
Pyeloplasty;
Robotic;
Laparoscopic;
Meta analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2019;40(6):456-461
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective This systematic review and Meta-analysis was conducted to clarify the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted (RP),laparoscopic (LP) and open (OP) dismembered pyeloplasty.Methods A systematic literature search on MEDLINE,Cochrane Central Register of Coutrolled Trials,and Web of Science was conducted to identify the relevant studies published before December 2018.Information was extracted from each eligible article.All statistical analyses of this Meta-analysis were performed with Stata 14 and RevMan 5.3 software.Results A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this Meta-analysis.Compared with OP,LP showed similar results on success rate (OR =0.89,95 ％ CI 0.47-1.69,P =0.729) and complication rate (OR =0.89,95％ CI0.58-1.36,P =0.585).LP had a longer operative time(WMD =53.86,95％ CI 13.23-94.29,P =0.009) and shorter length of stay (WMD =-2.32,95％ CI-3.48--1.16,P ＜ 0.001).Our study found that RP was superior to LP with respect to success rate (OR =2.53,95 ％ CI 1.03-6.19,P =0.043),complication rate (OR =0.54,95 ％ CI 0.31-0.96,P =0.034),operative time (WMD =-25.94,95％ CI-47.56--4.23,P =0.019) and length of stay (WMD =-25.94,95％ CI-47.56--4.23,P =0.019).Conclusions RP has some advantages,it may be applied for UPJO routinely in the future if the costs can be decreased.
