Robot-assisted vs open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer in adults.
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
17
7
2019
medline:
31
10
2020
entrez:
17
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It has been suggested that, in comparison with open radical cystectomy (ORC), robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) results in less blood loss, shorter convalescence and fewer complications, with equivalent short-term oncological and functional outcomes; however, uncertainty remains as to the magnitude of these benefits. To assess the effects of RARC vs ORC in adults with bladder cancer. We conducted a comprehensive search, with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RARC with ORC. The date of the last search was 1 July 2018. Databases searched included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1999 to July 2018), PubMed Embase (1999 to July 2018), Web of Science (1999 to July 2018), Cancer Research UK (www.cancerresearchuk.org/), and the Institute of Cancer Research (www.icr.ac.uk/). We also searched the following trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/); BioMed Central International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The review was based on a published protocol. Primary outcomes of the review were recurrence-free survival and major postoperative complications (Clavien grade III to V). Secondary outcomes were minor postoperative complications (Clavien grades I and II), transfusion requirement, length of hospital stay (days), quality of life, and positive surgical margins (%). Three review authors independently assessed relevant titles and abstracts of records identified by the literature search to determine which studies should be assessed further. Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse the data. We included in the review five RCTs comprising a total of 541 participants. Total numbers of participants included in the ORC and RARC cohorts were 270 and 271, respectively. We found that RARC and ORC may result in a similar time to recurrence (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.43; two trials, low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms at 5 years of follow-up, this corresponds to 16 more recurrences per 1000 participants (95% CI 79 fewer to 123 more) with 431 recurrences per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. RARC and ORC may result in similar rates of major complications (risk ratio [RR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.48; five trials, low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 11 more major complications per 1000 participants (95% CI 44 fewer to 89 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. We were very uncertain whether RARC reduces minor complications (very-low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and very serious imprecision. RARC probably results in substantially fewer transfusions than ORC (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; two trials, moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 193 fewer transfusions per 1000 participants (95% CI 262 fewer to 92 fewer) based on 460 transfusion per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations. RARC may result in a slightly shorter hospital stay than ORC (mean difference -0.67, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12; five trials, low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. RARC and ORC may result in a similar quality of life (standardized mean difference 0.08, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.16 higher; three trials, low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. RARC and ORC may result in similar positive surgical margin rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.40; five trials, low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to eight more (95% CI 21 fewer to 67 more) positive surgical margins per 1000 participants, based on 48 positive surgical margins per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. We conclude that RARC and ORC may have similar outcomes with regard to time to recurrence, rates of major complications, quality of life, and positive surgical margin rates (all low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether the robotic approach reduces rates of minor complications (very-low-certainty evidence), although it probably reduces the risk of blood transfusions substantially (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce hospital stay slightly (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses to assess the impact of patient age, pathological stage, body habitus, or surgeon expertise on outcomes. This review did not address issues of cost-effectiveness.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
It has been suggested that, in comparison with open radical cystectomy (ORC), robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) results in less blood loss, shorter convalescence and fewer complications, with equivalent short-term oncological and functional outcomes; however, uncertainty remains as to the magnitude of these benefits.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of RARC vs ORC in adults with bladder cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search, with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RARC with ORC. The date of the last search was 1 July 2018. Databases searched included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1999 to July 2018), PubMed Embase (1999 to July 2018), Web of Science (1999 to July 2018), Cancer Research UK (www.cancerresearchuk.org/), and the Institute of Cancer Research (www.icr.ac.uk/). We also searched the following trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/); BioMed Central International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry (www.isrctn.com); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. The review was based on a published protocol. Primary outcomes of the review were recurrence-free survival and major postoperative complications (Clavien grade III to V). Secondary outcomes were minor postoperative complications (Clavien grades I and II), transfusion requirement, length of hospital stay (days), quality of life, and positive surgical margins (%). Three review authors independently assessed relevant titles and abstracts of records identified by the literature search to determine which studies should be assessed further. Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE. We used Review Manager 5 to analyse the data.
RESULTS
We included in the review five RCTs comprising a total of 541 participants. Total numbers of participants included in the ORC and RARC cohorts were 270 and 271, respectively. We found that RARC and ORC may result in a similar time to recurrence (hazard ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 1.43; two trials, low-certainty evidence). In absolute terms at 5 years of follow-up, this corresponds to 16 more recurrences per 1000 participants (95% CI 79 fewer to 123 more) with 431 recurrences per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. RARC and ORC may result in similar rates of major complications (risk ratio [RR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.48; five trials, low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 11 more major complications per 1000 participants (95% CI 44 fewer to 89 more). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. We were very uncertain whether RARC reduces minor complications (very-low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and very serious imprecision. RARC probably results in substantially fewer transfusions than ORC (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80; two trials, moderate-certainty evidence). This corresponds to 193 fewer transfusions per 1000 participants (95% CI 262 fewer to 92 fewer) based on 460 transfusion per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations. RARC may result in a slightly shorter hospital stay than ORC (mean difference -0.67, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.12; five trials, low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. RARC and ORC may result in a similar quality of life (standardized mean difference 0.08, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.16 higher; three trials, low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision. RARC and ORC may result in similar positive surgical margin rates (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.40; five trials, low-certainty evidence). This corresponds to eight more (95% CI 21 fewer to 67 more) positive surgical margins per 1000 participants, based on 48 positive surgical margins per 1000 participants for ORC. We downgraded the certainty of evidence because of study limitations and imprecision.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that RARC and ORC may have similar outcomes with regard to time to recurrence, rates of major complications, quality of life, and positive surgical margin rates (all low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether the robotic approach reduces rates of minor complications (very-low-certainty evidence), although it probably reduces the risk of blood transfusions substantially (moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce hospital stay slightly (low-certainty evidence). We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses to assess the impact of patient age, pathological stage, body habitus, or surgeon expertise on outcomes. This review did not address issues of cost-effectiveness.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
765-779Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors BJU International © 2019 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Marzouk KH et al. Randomized trial comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: oncologic outcomes. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 465-71. [CRSREF: 10637698; PubMed: 29784190]
Bochner BH, Dalbagni G, Sjoberg DD et al. Comparing open radical cystectomy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a randomized clinical trial. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 1042-50. [CRSREF: 10637699]
Khan MS, Gan C, Ahmed K et al. A single-centre early phase randomised controlled three-arm trial of open, robotic, and laparoscopic radical cystectomy (CORAL). Eur Urol 2016; 69: 613-21. [CRSREF: 10637701]
Nix J, Smith A, Kurpad R, Nielsen ME, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS. Prospective randomized controlled trial of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: perioperative and pathologic results. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 196-201. [CRSREF: 10637703]
Messer JC, Punnen S, Fitzgerald J, Svatek R, Parekh DJ. Health-related quality of life from a prospective randomised clinical trial of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open radical cystectomy. BJU Int 2014; 114: 896-902. [CRSREF: 10637705]
Parekh DJ, Messer J, Fitzgerald J, Ercole B, Svatek R. Perioperative outcomes and oncologic efficacy from a pilot prospective randomized clinical trial of open versus robotic assisted radical cystectomy. J Urol 2013; 189: 474-9. [CRSREF: 10637706]
*Parekh DJ, Reis IM, Castle EP et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy in patients with bladder cancer (RAZOR): an open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 2525-36. [CRSREF: 10637708]
Anderson CB, Morgan TM, Kappa S et al. Ureteroenteric anastomotic strictures after radical cystectomy - does operative approach matter? J Urol 2013; 189: 541-7. [CRSREF: 10637710]
Atmaca AF, Canda AE, Gok B, Akbulut Z, Altinova S, Balbay MD. Open versus robotic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal Studer diversion. J Soc Laparoendoscop Surg 2015; 19:e2014.00193. [CRSREF: 10637712; PubMed: 25848187]
Bak DJ, Lee YJ, Woo MJ et al. Complications and oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical cystectomy: what is the real benefit? Investig Clin Urol 2016; 57: 260-7. [CRSREF: 10637714; PubMed: 27437535]
Borza T, Jacobs BL, Montgomery JS et al. No differences in population-based readmissions after open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: implications for post-discharge care. Urology 2017; 104: 77-83. [CRSREF: 10637716; PubMed: 28267606]
Cusano A, Haddock P Jr, Jackson M, Staff I, Wagner J, Meraney A. A comparison of preliminary oncologic outcome and postoperative complications between patients undergoing either open or robotic radical cystectomy. Int Braz J Urol 2016; 42: 663-70. [CRSREF: 10637718; PubMed: 27564275]
Galich A, Sterrett S, Nazemi T, Pohlman G, Smith L, Balaji KC. Comparative analysis of early perioperative outcomes following radical cystectomy by either the robotic or open method. J Soc Laparoendoscop Surg 2006; 10: 145-50. [CRSREF: 10637720]
Gandaglia G, Karl A, Novara G et al. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of robot- assisted versus open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer patients: a comparison of two high-volume referral centers. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016; 42: 1736-43. [CRSREF: 10637722; PubMed: 27032295]
Ginot R, Rouget B, Bensadoun H et al. Radical cystectomy with orthotopic neobladder replacement: comparison of robotic assisted and open surgical route [Cystectomie totale avec remplacement vesical orthotopique: comparaison des resultats des patients operes par voie ouverte et par voie coelioscopique robot-assistee.]. Progres en. Urologie 2016; 26: 457-63. [CRSREF: 10637724; PubMed: 27460787]
Gondo T, Yoshioka K, Nakagami Y et al. Robotic versus open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative and pathologic outcomes in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2012; 42: 625-31. [CRSREF: 10637726]
Khan MS, Challacombe B, Elhage O et al. A dual-centre, cohort comparison of open, laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. Int J Clin Pract 2012; 66: 656-62. [CRSREF: 10637728]
Koupparis A, Villeda-Sandoval C, Weale N, El-Mahdy M, Gillatt D, Rowe E. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion: impact on an established enhanced recovery protocol. BJU Int 2015; 116: 924-31. [CRSREF: 10637730; PubMed: 25943158]
Lee R, Ng CK, Shariat SF et al. The economics of robotic cystectomy: cost comparison of open versus robotic cystectomy. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1886-92. [CRSREF: 10637732]
Li AY, Filson CP, Hollingsworth JM et al. Patient-reported convalescence and quality of life recovery: a comparison of open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. Surg Innovat 2016; 23: 598-605. [CRSREF: 10637734; PubMed: 27354552]
Martin AD, Nunez RN, Castle EP. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: a complete cost analysis. Urology 2011; 77: 621-5. [CRSREF: 10637736]
Matulewicz RS, DeLancey JO, Manjunath A, Tse J, Kundu SD, Meeks JJ. National comparison of oncologic quality indicators between open and robotic-assisted radical cystectomy. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: 431.e9-15. [CRSREF: 10637738; PubMed: 27264169]
Musch M, Janowski M, Steves A et al. Comparison of early postoperative morbidity after robot-assisted and open radical cystectomy: results of a prospective observational study. BJU Int 2014; 113: 458-67. [CRSREF: 10637740]
Nepple KG, Strope SA, Grubb RL 3rd, Kibel AS. Early oncologic outcomes of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for urothelial cancer. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 894-8. [CRSREF: 10637742; PubMed: 21803615]
Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM et al. A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 274-82. [CRSREF: 10637744]
Nguyen DP, Al Hussein Al Awamlh B, Wu X et al. Recurrence patterns after open and robot-assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 399-405. [CRSREF: 10637746; PubMed: 25709026]
Rhee JJ, Lebeau S, Smolkin M, Theodorescu D. Radical cystectomy with ileal conduit diversion: early prospective evaluation of the impact of robotic assistance. BJU Int 2006; 98: 1059-63. [CRSREF: 10637748]
Satkunasivam R, Santomauro M, Chopra S et al. Robotic intracorporeal orthotopic neobladder: urodynamic outcomes, urinary function, and health-related quality of life. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 247-53. [CRSREF: 10637750; PubMed: 26164417]
Sharma P, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Poch MA et al. Surgical control and margin status after robotic and open cystectomy in high-risk cases: caution or equivalence? World J Urol 2017; 35: 657-63. [CRSREF: 10637752; PubMed: 27495912]
Styn NR, Montgomery JS, Wood DP et al. Matched comparison of robotic-assisted and open radical cystectomy. Urology 2012; 79: 1303-9. [CRSREF: 10637754]
Tan WS, Sridhar A, Ellis G et al. Analysis of open and intracorporeal robotic assisted radical cystectomy shows no significant difference in recurrence patterns and oncological outcomes. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: 257..e1-9. [CRSREF: 10637756; PubMed: 26968561]
Wang GJ, Barocas DA, Raman JD, Scherr DS. Robotic vs open radical cystectomy: prospective comparison of perioperative outcomes and pathological measures of early oncological efficacy. BJU Int 2008; 101: 89-93. [CRSREF: 10637758]
Winters BR, Bremjit PJ, Gore JL et al. Preliminary comparative effectiveness of robotic versus open radical cystectomy in elderly patients. J Endourol 2016; 30: 212-7. [CRSREF: 10637760; PubMed: 26414964]
Kelly J, Catto J. Trial to compare robotically assisted radical cystectomy with open radical cystectomy (iROC). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03049410 (accessed 7 June 2017). [CRSREF: 10637762]
Aboumarzouk OM, Drewa T, Olejniczak P, Chlosta PL. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy: a 5-year review of a single institute's operative data and complications and a systematic review of the literature. Int Braz J Urol 2012; 38: 330-40
Aboumarzouk OM, Hughes O, Narahari K, Drewa T, Chlosta PL, Kynaston H. Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic radical cystectomy for the treatment of bladder cancer. J Endourol Endourol Soc 2013; 27: 1083-95
Ballantyne GH, Moll F. The da Vinci telerobotic surgical system: the virtual operative field and telepresence surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2003; 83: 1293-304, vii.
Castillo OA, Abreu SC, Mariano MB et al. Complications in laparoscopic radical cystectomy: the South American experience with 59 cases. Int Braz J Urol 2006; 32: 300-5
Castillo OA, Vitagliano G, Vidal-Mora I. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy: the new gold standard for bladder carcinoma? Arch Esp Urol 2009; 62: 737-44
Cathelineau X, Arroyo C, Rozet F, Barret E, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic assisted radical cystectomy: the Montsouris experience after 84 cases. Eur Urol 2005; 47: 780-4
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205-13
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2013. globocan.iarc.fr (accessed 5 June 2015).
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit Ret al Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: E359-86
GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University, (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available at www.gradepro.org.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 2008; 336: 995-8. [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39490.551019.be]
Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 383-94. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026]
Haber GP, Crouzet S, Gill IS. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: a critical analysis. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 54-62
Hayn MH, Hussain A, Mansour AM et al. The learning curve of robot-assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 197-202
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-60. [MEDLINE: 12958120]
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed March 2011]
Hosseini A, Adding C, Nilsson A, Jonsson MN, Wiklund NP. Robotic cystectomy: surgical technique. BJU Int 2011; 108: 962-8
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005; 5: 13. [PubMed: 15840177]
Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009; 302: 1557-64. [PubMed: 19826025]
Huang J, Lin T, Xu K et al. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy with orthotopic ileal neobladder: a report of 85 cases. J Endourol Endourol Soc 2008; 22: 939-46
Huang J, Lin T, Liu H et al. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy with orthotopic ileal neobladder for bladder cancer: oncologic results of 171 cases with a median 3-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 442-9
Ishii H, Rai BP, Stolzenburg JU et al. Robotic or open radical cystectomy, which is safer? A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. J Endourol Endourol Soc 2014; 28: 1215-23. [PubMed: 25000311]
Jonsson MN, Adding LC, Hosseini A et al. Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion in patients with transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 1066-73
Khan MS, Elhage O, Challacombe B, Rimington P, Murphy D, Dasgupta P. Analysis of early complications of robotic- assisted radical cystectomy using a standardized reporting system. Urology 2011; 77: 357-62
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100]
Martin RC 2nd, Brennan MF, Jaques DP. Quality of complication reporting in the surgical literature. Ann Surg 2002; 235: 803-13. [PubMed: 12035036]
Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 431-52
Novara G, Catto JW, Wilson T et al. Systematic review and cumulative analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 376-401
Ploeg M, Aben KK, Kiemeney LA. The present and future burden of urinary bladder cancer in the world. World J Urol 2009; 27: 289-93
Raza SJ, Wilson T, Peabody JO et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes following robot- assisted radical cystectomy: results from the International Robotic Cystectomy Consortium. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 721-8. [PubMed: 25985883]
Redorta JP, Gaya JM, Breda A, Gausa L, Rodríguez O, Villavicencio H. Robotic cystectomy versus open cystectomy: are we there yet? Eur Urol Suppl 2010; 9: 433-7
Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014
Sathianathen NJ, Kalapara A, Frydenberg M et al. Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy vs open radical cystectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2018; 201: 715-20. [PubMed: 30321551]
Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J, Muller JM. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; 3: CD003145. [PubMed: 16034888]
Shabsigh A, Korets R, Vora KC et al. Defining early morbidity of radical cystectomy for patients with bladder cancer using a standardized reporting methodology. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 164-74. [PubMed: 18675501]
Sighinolfi MC, Micali S, Celia A et al. Laparoscopic radical cystectomy: an Italian survey. Surg Endosc 2007; 21: 1308-11
Smith AB, Raynor MC, Pruthi RS. Peri- and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). BJU Int 2011; 108: 969-75
Tang K, Xia D, Li H et al. Robotic vs. open radical cystectomy in bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2014; 40: 1399-411. [PubMed: 24767803]
Witjes JA, Comperat E, Cowan NC et al. EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer: summary of the 2013 guidelines. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 778-92. [PubMed: 24373477]
Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN et al. Robotically assisted versus laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 2013; 309: 689-98. [PubMed: 23423414]
Yuh B, Wilson T, Bochner B et al. Systematic review and cumulative analysis of oncologic and functional outcomes after robot-assisted radical cystectomy. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 402-22. [PubMed: 25560797]