Comparative Outcomes of Open Radical Cystectomy vs. Robot-Assisted Approaches with Intracorporeal and Extracorporeal Urinary Diversion: A Meta-Analysis and Network Meta-Analysis of Perioperative and Quality of Life Outcomes

• Published in: Journal of clinical medicine Vol. 13; no. 8; p. 2421
• Main Authors: Flammia, Rocco Simone, Licari, Leslie Claire, Bologna, Eugenio, Mastroianni, Riccardo, Proietti, Flavia, Tuderti, Gabriele, Anceschi, Umberto, Brassetti, Aldo, Franco, Antonio, De Nunzio, Cosimo, Autorino, Riccardo, Leonardo, Costantino, Simone, Giuseppe
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland MDPI AG 01.04.2024
• Subjects: Bladder cancer; Blood transfusions; Chemotherapy; Clinical trials; Comparative analysis; Complications and side effects; Cystectomy; Length of stay; Meta-analysis; Methods; Patient outcomes; Quality of life; Robotic surgery; Software; Statistical analysis; Systematic review; Urinary diversion; Urological surgery; Italy; ICUD; minimally invasive; network meta-analysis; ECUD; bladder cancer
• ISSN: 2077-0383; 2077-0383
• DOI: 10.3390/jcm13082421

Background: To conduct a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs that compare outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intra- or extracorporeal urinary diversion (ICUD or ECUD) and the standard open approach (oRC). Methods: A systematic review identified RCTs including patients aged >18 years with non-metastatic bladder cancer treated with RARC (ICUD or ECUD) vs. oRC and reporting peri- and post-operative outcomes and quality of life (QoL) assessment. Standard and network metanalyses were performed. Results: Data from 1024 patients included in eight RCTs were analyzed. The standard meta-analysis found that RARC had longer OT, lower EBL, and a lower transfusion rate compared to oRC (all p < 0.001). No significant differences in terms of LOS between the ICUD vs. ECUD vs. ORC were recorded. RARC patients demonstrated better scores in fatigue, insomnia, pain, physical functioning, and role functioning—according to QoL assessment—compared to ORC at early follow-up, despite no difference at baselines. Finally, at network metanalysis, ICUD (OR = 0.74, p < 0.001) but not ECUD (OR = 0.92, p < 0.08) yielded a lower rate of high-grade 90-day complications compared to ORC despite longer OT (MD = 89.56, p = 0.0351). Conclusions: RARC represents a safe and feasible option to reduce perioperative bleeding with no definitive impact on LOS compared to ORC. Interestingly, ICUD may reduce the burden of 90-day complications to a greater extent than ECUD. Nonetheless, surgeons should be aware of the extended OT and steep learning curve of ICUD. Finally, RARC may provide some short-term benefits in terms of QoL, but more research is needed to determine its long-term effects.