Robotic ureteral reconstruction for benign ureteral strictures: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes

Introduction Robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) has been widely used to treat ureteral diseases. To summarize the surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes following RUR, as well as to compare data on RUR with open and laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction. Methods Our systematic review was...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:BMC urology 2023-10, Vol.23 (1), p.1-11
Main Authors: Yang, Kunlin, Pang, Karl H, Fan, Shubo, Li, Xinfei, Osman, Nadir I, Chapple, Christopher R, Zhou, Liqun, Li, Xuesong
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Clinical trials
Cohort analysis
Comparative analysis
Comparative studies
Endoscopy
Etiology
Iatrogenesis
Laparoscopic
Laparoscopic surgery
Laparoscopy
Learning curves
Medical research
Medicine, Experimental
Minimally invasive
Patients
Radiation
Reconstruction
Reconstructive surgery
Robotic
Robotics
Stricture
Success
Surgical anastomosis
Surgical techniques
Systematic review
Ureteral stricture
Urinary tract diseases
Urology
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction Robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) has been widely used to treat ureteral diseases. To summarize the surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes following RUR, as well as to compare data on RUR with open and laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction. Methods Our systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022309364) database. The PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications in English on 06-Feb-2022. Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised cohort studies with sample size [greater than or equal to] 10 cases were included. Results A total of 23 studies were included involving 996 patients and 1004 ureters from 13 non-comparative, and 10 retrospective comparative studies. No RCT study of RUR was reported. The success rate was reported [greater than or equal to] 90% in 15 studies. Four studies reported 85-90% success rate. Meta-analyses for comparative studies showed that RUR had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.006) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) than the open approach. RUR had shorter operative time than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001). Conclusions RUR is associated with lower EBL and shorter LOS than the open approach, and shorter operative time than the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of benign ureteral strictures. However, further studies and more evidence are needed to determine whether RUR is more superior. Keywords: Ureteral stricture, Robotic, Laparoscopic, Minimally invasive, Reconstruction
ISSN:1471-2490
1471-2490
DOI:10.1186/s12894-023-01313-7