Comparing the outcomes of open, laparoscopic and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy: a network meta‐analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and network meta‐analysis (NMA) to determine the advantages and disadvantages of open (OPN), laparoscopic (LPN), and robot‐assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with particular attention to intraoperative, immediate postoperative, as well as longer‐term functional and oncological outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses‐NMA guidelines. Binary data were compared using odds ratios (ORs). Mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous variables. ORs and MDs were extracted from the articles to compare the efficacy of the various surgical approaches. Statistical validity is guaranteed when the 95% credible interval does not include 1.ResultsIn total, there were 31 studies included in the NMA with a combined 7869 patients. Of these, 33.7% (2651/7869) underwent OPN, 20.8% (1636/7869) LPN, and 45.5% (3582/7689) RAPN. There was no difference for either LPN or RAPN as compared to OPN in ischaemia time, intraoperative complications, positive surgical margins, operative time or trifecta rate. The estimated blood loss (EBL), postoperative complications and length of stay were all significantly reduced in RAPN when compared with OPN. The outcomes of RAPN and LPN were largely similar except the significantly reduced EBL in RAPN.ConclusionThis systematic review and NMA suggests that RAPN is the preferable operative approach for patients undergoing surgery for lower‐staged RCC.