Comparative effectiveness of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Dechao Feng, Ao Li, Xiao Hu, Tianhai Lin, Yin Tang, Ping Han
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our aim is to compare feasibility and safety of open radical cystectomy (ORC), laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) and robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) for the treatment of bladder cancer through network meta-analysis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Eligible articles were identified from electronic databases including PubMed/Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to August 2019 with no language limitations. Studies selection, quality assessment, data extraction and analysis were accomplished by two independent reviewers (DCF and AL) using Cochrane Collaboration's tools. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening 2528 articles, 27 studies were included in the final meta-analysis. In the network meta-analysis, both RARC (MD:83.09, 95% CI: 61.06 to 105.11) and LRC (MD: 49.68, 95% CI: 21.75 to 77.62) showed a longer operative time compared with ORC. Besides, RARC had a longer operative time than LRC (MD: 33.40, 95% CI: 1.35 to 65.45). RARC (MD:-591.86, 95% CI: -879.46 to -304.27) and LRC (MD: -435.28, 95% CI: -854.98 to -15.58) showed a less estimated blood loss (EBL) than ORC; however, the difference in EBL for RARC versus LRC was not significant. RARC (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.50) and LRC (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.43) had a higher blood transfusion rate than ORC; however, the OR between RARC and LRC was not significant. RARC (MD: -1.34, 95% CI: -2.55 to -0.12) and LRC (MD: -1.35, 95% CI: -2.38 to -0.32) took a shorter time to regular diet compared with ORC; however, there was no significant difference between RARC and LRC. Compared with ORC, RARC (MD: -2.37, 95% CI: -3.57 to -1.17) and LRC (MD: -2.22, 95% CI: -4.04 to -0.40) showed a shorter length of stay (LOS); however, the difference in LOS for RARC versus LRC was not significant. RARC, LRC and ORC were comparable with regard to minor complications, major complications, positive surgical margin and lymph node yields. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicates that minimally invasive approaches could be considered as a feasible and safe alternative to ORC when performed by experienced surgeons in selected patients. Notably, RARC may be more suitable for RC with extracorporeal urinary diversion. Larger well-designed trials are still needed to confirm these findings due to the observational nature of most studies.