IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0094878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robotic versus Open Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zhenjie Wu
  • Mingmin Li
  • Bing Liu
  • Chen Cai
  • Huamao Ye
  • Chen Lv
  • Qing Yang
  • Jing Sheng
  • Shangqing Song
  • Le Qu
  • Liang Xiao
  • Yinghao Sun
  • Linhui Wang

Abstract

Objectives: To critically review the currently available evidence of studies comparing robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN) and open partial nephrectomy (OPN). Materials and Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature from Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus was performed in October 2013. All relevant studies comparing RPN with OPN were included for further screening. A cumulative meta-analysis of all comparative studies was performed and publication bias was assessed by a funnel plot. Results: Eight studies were included for the analysis, including a total of 3418 patients (757 patients in the robotic group and 2661 patients in the open group). Although RPN procedures had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 40.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.39–67.40; p = 0.002), patients in this group benefited from a lower perioperative complication rate (19.3% for RPN and 29.5% for OPN; odds ratio [OR]: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42–0.67; p

Suggested Citation

  • Zhenjie Wu & Mingmin Li & Bing Liu & Chen Cai & Huamao Ye & Chen Lv & Qing Yang & Jing Sheng & Shangqing Song & Le Qu & Liang Xiao & Yinghao Sun & Linhui Wang, 2014. "Robotic versus Open Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-8, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0094878
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094878
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094878&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0094878?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefano Trastulli & Roberto Cirocchi & Jacopo Desiderio & Andrea Coratti & Salvatore Guarino & Claudio Renzi & Alessia Corsi & Carlo Boselli & Alberto Santoro & Liliana Minelli & Amilcare Parisi, 2015. "Robotic versus Laparoscopic Approach in Colonic Resections for Cancer and Benign Diseases: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-26, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0094878. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.