Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2025
Robot-Assisted Kidney Transplantation
Published on: July 19, 2021
Retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy, which one is better?
Jing Zhou1,2, Zheng-Huan Liu1,2, De-Hong Cao1
1Department of Urology/Institute of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Purpose:
To systematically assess the perioperative outcomes of retroperitoneal (RP) and transperitoneal (TP) approaches in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN), we conducted an updated meta-analysis.
Methods:
A literature retrieval of multi-database including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI was performed to identify eligible comparative studies from the inception dates to January 2021. Perioperative outcomes included operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), warm ischemia time (WIT), postoperative length of stay (PLOS), positive surgical margin (PSM), and complications (major complications and overall complications). Outcomes of data were pooled and analyzed with Review Manager 5.4.1.
Results:
Twenty-one studies involving a total of 2482 RP and 3423 TP approach RAPN patients met the inclusion criteria. Operating time (OT) (weighted mean difference [WMD] -16.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] -23.08, -10.12; p < 0.01) and PLOS (WMD -0.46 days; 95% CI -0.69, -0.23; p < 0.01) were shorter in RP-RAPN. Besides, lower EBL (WMD -21.67; 95% CI -29.74, -13.60; p < 0.05) was also found in RP-RAPN. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found in other outcomes.
Conclusions:
RP-RARN was superior to TP-RAPN in patients undergoing RAPN in terms of OT, PLOS, and estimated blood loss. Besides these two approaches have no significant differences in PSMs or perioperative complications.
