Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic, laparoscopic and open surgery in ureteral reimplantation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review

To compare the efficacy and safety between open ureteral replantation (OUR), laparoscopic ureteral replantation (LUR) and robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral replantation (RALUR). This review produced by the R3.5.0 software with “gemtc” program package and JAGS3.4.0 software based on the Bayesian model. A comprehensive search was done in databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, Cnki, CBM and WANFANG DATA. Studies that compared OUR, LUR OR RALUR were selected. Summary of Conclusions by ranking of Outcomes. A total of 3949 patients from 29 studies were included. The success rate in OUR, LUR and RALUR was 97.72%, 94.68% and 95.82%. The OR (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR was 0.76 (0.42,1.7) and 0.76 (0.30, 2.6), respectively, compared with OUR. The rate of complications in OUR, LUR and RALUR was 12.78%, 7.94% and 16.32%. The OR (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR was 0.28 (0.16, 0.48) and 0.61 (0.24,1.3), respectively, compared with OUR. The MD (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR for operation time was 22 (2,40) and 46 (7.5,84), respectively, compared with OUR. The MD (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR for hospital stay was − 3.6 (− 4.5, − 2.7) and − 1.1 (− 2.9, 0.58), respectively, compared with OUR. There is no significant difference in the success rates of OUR, LUR, and RALUR. RALUR and OUR has similar complication rates and time of hospital stay, while LUR has fewer complications and faster time to discharge compared to RALUR and OUR. The operative time of OUR is significantly less compared to LUR and RALUR.