Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on comparative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Robot-assisted nephroureterectomy (RANU) and laparoscopic nephroureterectomy (LNU) are two minimally invasive surgical management for upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUC). Though more high-tech, it remains largely unclear whether RANU provides additional benefits over LNU. We aimed to quantitatively compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes between RANU and LNU. Methods: The systematic review was performed based on a registered protocol (registration number CRD42022319086). We searched through PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, as well as conference proceedings and references of review articles (May 2022) for comparative studies reporting perioperative and oncologic outcomes independently in RANU and LNU groups. Selection of studies and data extraction were performed independently by two researchers. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results of random-effects meta-analyses were presented as mean differences (MD) or Odds ratio (OR), as appropriate. Subgroup and univariate meta-regression analyses were performed to identify interstudy heterogeneities. Results: The review included 8470 patients undergoing RANU and 19872 patients undergoing LNU from 12 comparative original studies. RANU was associated with fewer overall complications (OR=0.71, 95%CI: 0.62 to 0.81), longer operative time (MD=27.70, 95%CI: 0.83 to 54.60) and shorter length of stay (MD=-0.53, 95%CI: -0.98 to -0.07) compared to LNU. In addition, patients receiving RANU were more likely to have lymph node dissected (OR=2.61, 95%CI: 1.86 to 3.65). Recurrence and survival outcomes did not differ between two surgical procedures. Sample size, types of LNU and world region were major sources of heterogeneity. Conclusion: For UTUC patients, RANU offers fewer complications and shorter hospitalization. However, RANU requires longer operative time and shares similar oncologic outcomes compared to LNU. Further randomized designed studies are warranted. Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022319086.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".