Home > Journals > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6):553-68



Publishing options
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as


REVIEW   Free accessfree

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 December;71(6):553-68

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03546-X


language: English

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of open and robotic assisted radical cystectomy

Simone ALBISINNI 1 , Alessandro VECCIA 2, Fouad AOUN 3, 4, Romain DIAMAND 1, Francesco ESPERTO 5, Francesco PORPIGLIA 6, Thierry ROUMEGUÈRE 1, Cosimo DE NUNZIO 7

1 Department of Urology, University Clinics of Brussels, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; 2 Division of Urology, VCU Health Center and McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, VA, USA; 3 Department of Urology, Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium; 4 Department of Urology, Hôtel Dieu de France, Saint Joseph University, Beyrouth, Lebanon; 5 Department of Urology, Humanitas Gavezzani, Bergamo, Italy; 6 Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy; 7 Department of Urology, Sant’Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

INTRODUCTION: Robotic assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is gaining popularity worldwide, although its enthusiastic implementation is supported mainly by retrospective studies. Aim of this review is to compare the outcomes of RARC and open radical cystectomy (ORC) in the setting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Three search engines (PubMed, Embase®, and Web of Science) were queried up to January 1, 2019. Studies selections followed The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement to find studies regarding patients with clinically localized muscle invasive and high risk non muscle invasive bladder cancer who underwent RARC or ORC to evaluate surgical, pathological, and oncological outcomes. The statistical analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Five randomized controlled trial were identified. We found RARC group to be not associated to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR: 0.67; 95%CI: 0.46, 0.98; P=0.04). ORC had shorter operative time (OT) (WMD: 95.14 minutes; 95%CI: 50.59, 139.68; P<0.0001), whereas RARC showed to provide lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD: -277.60 mL; 95%CI: -471.02, -84.18; P=0.005). RARC demonstrated lower risk of transfusions compared to the ORN group (OR: 0.52; 95%CI: 0.32, 0.85; P=0.008) as well as shorter LOS (WMD: -0.92 days; 95%CI: -1.46, -0.37; P=0.001). No difference was recorded in terms of pathological and oncological outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: RARC does exhibit known benefits of minimally invasive surgery, although the impact of an enhanced recovery pathway is probably more important than the surgical approach in determining post-operative morbidity. To date, well designed prospective studies have found that RARC yields non-inferior oncologic outcomes compared to ORC.

KEY WORDS: Cystectomy; Robotics; Urinary bladder neoplasms

top of page