Editorial Comment: Comparing Robot-Assisted Surgery Outcomes in Urology With Those From Open and Laparoscopic Techniques: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this interesting systematic review, McGill et al1 aim to support surgeons, commissioners, and other health service leaders to understand how robot-assisted surgery compares with open and laparoscopic techniques with respect to clinical outcomes when performing radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy, and nephrectomy. In total, 17 studies were used for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, 13 for radical cystectomy, and 15 for nephrectomies (10 for partial and 5 for radical). It is very important to mention that in experienced hands, the oncological outcomes are comparable with the 3 approaches (robotic, open, and laparoscopic) when performing these types of surgeries. The authors confirm that a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offers the patient less blood loss and transfusion rates when compared with the open or laparoscopic approaches. Regarding complications, it will really depend on surgeon experience, patient comorbidities, and patient selection in the series of cases analyzed in this systematic review. Having said this, the robotic approach in this systematic review shows a tendency for less complication-related events as well as less length of stay than the open and laparoscopic techniques. With respect to cost effectiveness as indicated by quality-adjusted life years, the robotic approach had a tendency to be superior then the open and laparoscopic techniques. For this reason, the authors support the use of the robotic approach for prostate cancer and recommend that surgical centers have a default position of prioritizing the use of robotic devices for this purpose. We clearly agree on this, however, if there is no access to a robotic system, patients should select the surgeon with the most experience in either open or laparoscopic techniques that can give them results comparable with the robotic approach. For cystectomies, the authors report less transfusions and blood loss for the robotic approach compared with open approach. There was no difference when compared with the laparoscopic approach. With respect to complications, although there is no definitive difference between approaches, it is difficult to really compare an open approach to a combination of studies involving intracorporeal and extracorporeal urinary diversion reconstruction using the robotic approach. This could also influence on finding no difference in hospital stay for the robotic approach in comparison with open and laparoscopic techniques. Having said this, there is no mention on “ERAS” protocol usage for all of the approaches evaluated. With respect to nephrectomy, there is clearly less hospital stay with the robotic approach compared with the open, but similar when compared with the laparoscopic technique. However, in this systematic review, it is difficult to differentiate partial nephrectomies and radical nephrectomies. They did not specify also if retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy was performed for radical nephrectomies. Finally, we can say that radical cystectomies and nephrectomies are performed more and more robotically. Surgeons feel comfortable with the robotic approach. There is a need to proof its cost effectiveness, but it clearly depends on surgeon experience and appropriate patient selection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".