Optimizing Urological Concurrent Robotic Multisite Surgery: Juxtaposing a Single-Center Experience and a Literature Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: This article juxtaposes case series with a systematic review to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of concurrent robotic multisite urological surgeries, specifically robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), for synchronous prostate and kidney cancers. Aim: The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of urological concurrent robotic multisite surgeries through a comparison of institutional findings with the existing literature. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on eight institutional cases of concurrent robotic multisite surgeries performed between 2021 and 2024. The primary outcomes measured were operative time, blood loss, and postoperative complications. A systematic review of the literature was performed, searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, with the last search conducted on 1 July 2024. Studies were included if they reported on concurrent robotic surgeries corresponding to the procedures performed at the institution, including RARP with RAPN, RARP with robotic transabdominal preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (RTAPPIHR), and other multisite robotic surgeries. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze operative time and blood loss, with confidence intervals (CIs) calculated to assess precision. Categorical variables, including postoperative complications, were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic, with values above 50% indicating substantial heterogeneity. A random effects model was applied when necessary, and sensitivity analyses excluded studies with high risk of bias. Results: We describe a unique docking technique employed in our procedures, which allows for atraumatic transitions between surgeries using the same port sites. Our institutional cases demonstrated the feasibility and safety of concurrent robotic multisite surgery, with a mean operative time of 315 min (95% CI: 290–340) and mean blood loss of 300 mL (95% CI: 250–350). There were no significant intraoperative complications reported. These findings are consistent with the literature, where mean operative times range from 390 to 430 min and blood loss ranges from 200 to 330 mL. Notably, no positive surgical margins or declines in postoperative renal function were observed in our cases. The systematic review included nine retrospective studies involving 40 cases of concurrent RARP and RAPN, as well as eleven studies including 392 cases of RARP combined with RTAPPIHR. The findings from these studies support the feasibility and safety of concurrent surgeries, showing similar rates of operative time, blood loss, and postoperative complications. Conclusions: Concurrent robotic multisite surgeries, such as RARP combined with RAPN or RTAPPIHR, appear to be safe and feasible. Our data suggest these procedures are non-inferior to separate surgeries in terms of safety and complication rates. Potential benefits, including reduced operative times, shorter hospital stays, and more efficient resource use, may translate into cost savings, although no formal cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. Limitations include the small sample size, retrospective design, and lack of long-term follow-up. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings and further refine the techniques. Funding: this review did not receive any external funding. Registration: this review was not registered in any public protocol registry due to its comparative retrospective nature.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».