Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 87,000 cases

Alessandro Veccia, Alessandro Antonelli, Simone Francavilla, Claudio Simeone, Georgi Guruli, Homayoun Zargar, Sisto Perdoná, Matteo Ferro, Giuseppe Carrieri, Lance J. Hampton, Francesco Porpiglia, Riccardo Autorino

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature inherent robotic nephroureterectomy (RNU) and to compare its outcomes with those of other nephroureterectomy (NU) techniques. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed up to April 2019 using PubMed, Embase®, and Web of Science. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement was followed for study selection. The following data were extracted for each study: baseline features, surgical outcomes, oncological outcomes, and survival outcomes. Stata® 15.0 was used for statistical analysis. Results: Literature search identified 80 studies eligible for the meta-analysis and overall 87,291 patients were included in the analysis: open NU (ONU; n = 45,601), hand-assisted laparoscopic NU (HALNU; n = 442), laparoscopic NU (LNU n = 31,093), and RNU (n = 10,155). RNU was more likely to be performed in those patients with multifocal tumor location (proportion: 0.19; 95% CI 0.14, 0.24) and high-grade disease (proportion: 0.70; 95% CI 0.53, 0.68). The lowest EBL was recorded in the RNU group (weighted mean (WM) 163.31 mL; 95% CI 88.94, 237.68), whereas the highest was in the ONU group (414.99 mL; 95% CI 378.52, 451.46). Operative time was shorter for ONU (224.98 mL; 95% CI 212.26, 237.69). RNU had lower rate of intraoperative complications (0.02; 95% CI 0.01, 0.05). ONU showed higher odds of transfusions (0.20; 95% CI 0.15, 0.25). LOS was statistically significantly shorter for the RNU group (5.35 days; 95% CI 4.97, 5.82). HALNU seemed to present lower risk of PSM (0.02; 95% CI − 0.01, 0.05), and lower risk of recurrence (0.22; 95% CI 0.15, 0.30), metastasis (0.07; 95% CI 0.05, 0.10), and cancer-related death (0.03; 95% CI 0.01, 0.06). ONU showed the lowest 5 years cancer specific survival (proportion: 0.77; 95% CI 0.74, 0.80). No correlation was found between the surgical technique and recurrence-free and cancer-specific survival. Conclusions: Evidence regarding RNU for the treatment of UTUC is increasing but it remains quite sparse and of low quality. Despite this, RNU seems to be safe, and to offer the advantages of a minimally invasive approach without impairing the oncological outcomes. Nevertheless, ONU, HALNU, and LNU still represent a valid, and commonly used surgical treatment option. As RNU becomes more popular, and concerns related to its use remain, the best surgical technique for NU remains to be determined.

Original languageEnglish
JournalWorld Journal of Urology
Publication statusPublished - 2020


  • Hand-assisted radical nephroureterectomy
  • Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy
  • Open radical nephroureterectomy
  • Robotic radical nephroureterectomy
  • Upper tract urothelial carcinoma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology


Dive into the research topics of 'Robotic versus other nephroureterectomy techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 87,000 cases'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this