TY - JOUR
T1 - Transperitoneal vs extraperitoneal radical cystectomy
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Leonardo, Kevin
AU - Mirza, Hendy
AU - Seno, Doddy Hami
AU - Purnomo, Nugroho
AU - Afriansyah, Andika
AU - Siregar, Moammar Andar Roemare
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright: © 2023 Leonardo et al.
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - Background One of the most complex surgeries including radical cystectomy (RC) has a high rate of morbidity. The standard approach for the muscle-invasive bladder is conventional transperitoneal radical cystectomy. However, the procedure is associated with significant morbidities like ileus, urinary leak, bleeding, and infection. The aim of this study is to compare the transperitoneal RC approach with the extraperitoneal RC approach in the treatment of bladder cancer patients. The outcomes of this study are Operative time, Estimated Blood Loss, Hospital Stay, Post-Operative Ileus, Infection, and Major Complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade 3–5). Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct were systematically searched for different publications related to the meta-analysis. Keywords used for searching were Radical Cystectomy AND Extraperitoneal AND Transperitoneal up until 31st August 2022. The studies were screened for our eligibility criteria. Demographic parameters, perioperative variables, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias in each study. The Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eight studies (3 laparoscopic and 5 open methods) involving 1207 subjects (588 patients using the extraperitoneal approach and 619 using the transperitoneal approach) were included. The incidence of postoperative ileus is significantly lower after the extraperitoneal approach compared to the transperitoneal approach (p < 0.00001). The two techniques did not differ in operative time, estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, total infection, and major complication events. Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that extraperitoneal radical cystectomy benefits in terms of reduced postoperative ileus.
AB - Background One of the most complex surgeries including radical cystectomy (RC) has a high rate of morbidity. The standard approach for the muscle-invasive bladder is conventional transperitoneal radical cystectomy. However, the procedure is associated with significant morbidities like ileus, urinary leak, bleeding, and infection. The aim of this study is to compare the transperitoneal RC approach with the extraperitoneal RC approach in the treatment of bladder cancer patients. The outcomes of this study are Operative time, Estimated Blood Loss, Hospital Stay, Post-Operative Ileus, Infection, and Major Complication (Clavien-Dindo Grade 3–5). Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct were systematically searched for different publications related to the meta-analysis. Keywords used for searching were Radical Cystectomy AND Extraperitoneal AND Transperitoneal up until 31st August 2022. The studies were screened for our eligibility criteria. Demographic parameters, perioperative variables, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the risk of bias in each study. The Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4.1 was used for statistical analysis. Results Eight studies (3 laparoscopic and 5 open methods) involving 1207 subjects (588 patients using the extraperitoneal approach and 619 using the transperitoneal approach) were included. The incidence of postoperative ileus is significantly lower after the extraperitoneal approach compared to the transperitoneal approach (p < 0.00001). The two techniques did not differ in operative time, estimated blood loss, duration of hospital stay, total infection, and major complication events. Conclusion This meta-analysis shows that extraperitoneal radical cystectomy benefits in terms of reduced postoperative ileus.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85178508754&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0294809
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0294809
M3 - Article
C2 - 38032964
AN - SCOPUS:85178508754
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 18
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 11 November
M1 - e0294809
ER -