Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic ileal ureteral replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Porto, Breno C; Belkovsky, Mikhael; Zogaib, Giulia V; Passerotti, Carlo C; Artifon, Everson L A; Otoch, Jose P; Da Cruz, Jose A S.
Afiliação
  • Porto BC; Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Belkovsky M; Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Zogaib GV; Specialized Centre for Urology, German Hospital Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Passerotti CC; Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Artifon ELA; Specialized Centre for Urology, German Hospital Oswaldo Cruz, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Otoch JP; Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Da Cruz JAS; Surgical Technique and Experimental Surgery, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cent European J Urol ; 77(2): 304-309, 2024.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39345319
ABSTRACT

Introduction:

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) are the main options for ileal ureteral replacement (IUR). It is not clear which option is superior. The purpose of this study is to compare RALS and LS for IUR. Material and

methods:

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for studies comparing RALS and LS for IUR. The outcomes of interest are operative time, blood loss, postoperative stay, and Clavien-Dindo complications. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4.

Results:

We included 36 patients from 3 studies. The mean age was 44 years, with 53% male patients. Blood loss (MD -89.13 cc, CI -129.03 to -49.22, I2 = 0%) was significantly lower in patients undergoing RALS when comparing with LS. No differences were observed when comparing operative time (MD -10.99 minutes, CI -85.66 to 63.59, p = 0.77, I2 = 64%), postoperative stay (MD -2.56 days, CI -8.24 to 3.13, p = 0.38, I2 = 30%), and postoperative complications (OR 1.63, CI 0.27 to 10.02, p = 0.60, I2 = 0%).

Conclusions:

Overall, we conclude that the robot-assisted technique showed less bleeding compared to the laparoscopic technique.
Palavras-chave
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Cent European J Urol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil País de publicação: Polônia
Texto completo
Adicionar na Minha BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar no Google

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Cent European J Urol Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Brasil País de publicação: Polônia