Systematic Review of Robotic Nephrectomy for Kidney Cancer.

IF 1.9 Q3 ONCOLOGY Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL Pub Date : 2025-03-05 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.15586/jkc.v12i1.372
Danilo Coco, Silvana Leanza, Massimo Giuseppe Viola, Desideria Coco
{"title":"Systematic Review of Robotic Nephrectomy for Kidney Cancer.","authors":"Danilo Coco, Silvana Leanza, Massimo Giuseppe Viola, Desideria Coco","doi":"10.15586/jkc.v12i1.372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Robotic nephrectomy has become an increasingly preferred surgical technique for managing renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This review aims to systematically evaluate existing literature on the safety, efficacy, clinical outcomes, and associated costs of robotic nephrectomy, especially in relation to tumor dimensions and other pertinent patient factors. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed an extensive literature search across major databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) from inception to October 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared robotic nephrectomy with open or laparoscopic nephrectomy. Outcomes analyzed included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complication rates, length of hospital stay, oncological outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. The Egger test was used to assess publication bias. The review incorporated 30 studies involving 5,432 patients who underwent robotic nephrectomy. Key findings indicated that robotic nephrectomy resulted in significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (mean difference of -85 mL; p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stays (mean difference of -1.3 days). Tumor size had a notable impact on surgical outcomes, with larger tumors (≥7 cm) being associated with prolonged operative times and slightly higher complication rates. Robotic nephrectomy was also associated with higher costs compared to conventional surgical techniques; however, reduced readmission rates offset some of these costs. Oncological outcomes for robotic nephrectomy were comparable to those of open nephrectomy. Robotic nephrectomy is a safe and effective approach for kidney cancer that demonstrates advantages in perioperative recovery and surgical precision, particularly for smaller tumors. While costs may be higher, the clinical benefits and potential long-term savings from decreased postoperative complications recommend its use. Further high-quality RCTs are essential to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":44291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL","volume":"12 1","pages":"29-35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11909633/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Kidney Cancer and VHL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15586/jkc.v12i1.372","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Robotic nephrectomy has become an increasingly preferred surgical technique for managing renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This review aims to systematically evaluate existing literature on the safety, efficacy, clinical outcomes, and associated costs of robotic nephrectomy, especially in relation to tumor dimensions and other pertinent patient factors. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed an extensive literature search across major databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) from inception to October 2023. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared robotic nephrectomy with open or laparoscopic nephrectomy. Outcomes analyzed included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, complication rates, length of hospital stay, oncological outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. The Egger test was used to assess publication bias. The review incorporated 30 studies involving 5,432 patients who underwent robotic nephrectomy. Key findings indicated that robotic nephrectomy resulted in significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (mean difference of -85 mL; p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stays (mean difference of -1.3 days). Tumor size had a notable impact on surgical outcomes, with larger tumors (≥7 cm) being associated with prolonged operative times and slightly higher complication rates. Robotic nephrectomy was also associated with higher costs compared to conventional surgical techniques; however, reduced readmission rates offset some of these costs. Oncological outcomes for robotic nephrectomy were comparable to those of open nephrectomy. Robotic nephrectomy is a safe and effective approach for kidney cancer that demonstrates advantages in perioperative recovery and surgical precision, particularly for smaller tumors. While costs may be higher, the clinical benefits and potential long-term savings from decreased postoperative complications recommend its use. Further high-quality RCTs are essential to validate these findings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
6.20%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Precision Medicine: Seeing the Tree in the Forest! Systematic Review of Robotic Nephrectomy for Kidney Cancer. Novel Case of Bilateral Adrenal Tumors Confirms Pathogenicity of Previously Described c.463+4C>G Variant in the von-Hippel Lindau Gene. Identification of BCL11A, NTN5, and OGN as Diagnosis Biomarker of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinomas by Bioinformatic Analysis. Mucinous Tubular and Spindle Cell Carcinoma: Case Report and Literature Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1