Scholarlink

<p>The retroperitoneal approach for RAPN minimizes interference with intraperitoneal organs but is constrained by a restricted operating space. The single-port (SP) robotic platform excels in navigating tight anatomical environments compared to the multi-port (MP) robotic system. However, there are not many studies that compare the results of surgery using these two platforms when the retroperitoneal approach is used. To address this difference, a detailed review of current studies was done to compare the results of SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN surgeries that were performed using the retroperitoneal method. A comprehensive search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink to identify any studies that compare urgent-start PD versus urgent-start HD prior to November 25th, 2024. To compare SP-RAPN to MP-RAPN, we looked at things like operation duration, expected blood loss, length of stay, ischemia time, all complications, PSMs, and pathological stage. This meta-analysis incorporated four studies involving a total of 728 patients. Our findings showed no notable distinctions in operative time (WMD −&#xa0;4.75&#xa0;min, 95% CI −&#xa0;12.05 to 2.55, <i>p</i> = 0.20), ischemia time (WMD 3.01&#xa0;min, 95%CI −&#xa0;1.32 to 7.34, <i>p</i> = 0.17), blood loss (WMD -3.53&#xa0;ml, 95% CI −&#xa0;18.01 to 10.95, <i>p</i> = 0.63), hospital stay duration (WMD −&#xa0;0.23&#xa0;days, 95% CI −&#xa0;0.69 to 0.23, <i>p</i> = 0.32), or overall complication rates (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.11 to 1.04, <i>p</i> = 0.06) between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Additionally, there was no significant variation in the incidence of positive surgical margins (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33 to 1.65, <i>p</i> = 0.46) or in the distribution of postoperative pathological stages, including pT1a (OR 1.22, 95%CI 0.81 to 1.82, <i>p</i> = 0.35), pT1b (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.06, <i>p</i> = 0.08), and stages ≥ pT2 (OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.54 to 2.38, <i>p</i> = 0.75). While single-port robotic systems provide notable operational advantages in confined spaces, our meta-analysis shows no significant differences between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, ischemia time, complication rates, and positive surgical margins when both techniques are used for retroperitoneal resection of non-complex renal tumors. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are required for long-term follow-up to further validate these findings.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes in single-port and multi-port retroperitoneal robot-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月29日

查看全文
  • ZongYing Lv,
  • ChunYu Huang,
  • SiJin Lin,
  • WenKai Tang,
  • Kai Peng,
  • LiKe Zeng,
  • Xin Li,
  • LiangSuo Zhang

摘要

The retroperitoneal approach for RAPN minimizes interference with intraperitoneal organs but is constrained by a restricted operating space. The single-port (SP) robotic platform excels in navigating tight anatomical environments compared to the multi-port (MP) robotic system. However, there are not many studies that compare the results of surgery using these two platforms when the retroperitoneal approach is used. To address this difference, a detailed review of current studies was done to compare the results of SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN surgeries that were performed using the retroperitoneal method. A comprehensive search was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and SpringerLink to identify any studies that compare urgent-start PD versus urgent-start HD prior to November 25th, 2024. To compare SP-RAPN to MP-RAPN, we looked at things like operation duration, expected blood loss, length of stay, ischemia time, all complications, PSMs, and pathological stage. This meta-analysis incorporated four studies involving a total of 728 patients. Our findings showed no notable distinctions in operative time (WMD − 4.75 min, 95% CI − 12.05 to 2.55, p = 0.20), ischemia time (WMD 3.01 min, 95%CI − 1.32 to 7.34, p = 0.17), blood loss (WMD -3.53 ml, 95% CI − 18.01 to 10.95, p = 0.63), hospital stay duration (WMD − 0.23 days, 95% CI − 0.69 to 0.23, p = 0.32), or overall complication rates (OR 0.34, 95%CI 0.11 to 1.04, p = 0.06) between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN. Additionally, there was no significant variation in the incidence of positive surgical margins (OR 0.74, 95%CI 0.33 to 1.65, p = 0.46) or in the distribution of postoperative pathological stages, including pT1a (OR 1.22, 95%CI 0.81 to 1.82, p = 0.35), pT1b (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.06, p = 0.08), and stages ≥ pT2 (OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.54 to 2.38, p = 0.75). While single-port robotic systems provide notable operational advantages in confined spaces, our meta-analysis shows no significant differences between SP-RAPN and MP-RAPN in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, ischemia time, complication rates, and positive surgical margins when both techniques are used for retroperitoneal resection of non-complex renal tumors. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials are required for long-term follow-up to further validate these findings.