Author
Listed:
- Kevin Leonardo
- Hendy Mirza
- Doddy Hami Seno
- Nugroho Purnomo
- Andika Afriansyah
- Moammar Andar Roemare Siregar
Abstract
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
Suggested Citation
Kevin Leonardo & Hendy Mirza & Doddy Hami Seno & Nugroho Purnomo & Andika Afriansyah & Moammar Andar Roemare Siregar, 2023.
"Transperitoneal vs extraperitoneal radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-10, November.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0294809
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294809
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0294809. 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.