Percutaneous ablation versus robotic‑assisted partial nephrectomy for cT1 renal cell carcinoma: an evidence-based...

This investigation sought to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of percutaneous ablation (PCA) versus robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) among individuals diagnosed with cT1 renal tumors. This study rigorously followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was carried out in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, focusing on studies published in English through February 2024. We focused on evaluating primary outcomes, specifically perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. In this analysis, data from 1534 patients across 13 studies were evaluated. PCA was found to have advantageous outcomes in comparison to RAPN regarding hospital stay durations, with a Weighted Mean Difference (WMD) of - 2.03 days (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: -3.78 to - 0.27; p = 0.02), operative times (WMD: -106.75 min; 95% CI: - 170.78 to - 42.72; p = 0.001), and overall complication rates (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.89; p = 0.01). Conversely, PCA showed a higher incidence of local recurrence compared to RAPN, with an OR of 3.20 (95% CI: 1.91 to 5.35; p < 0.00001). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatments in terms of major complications, declines in estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR), variations in creatinine levels, overall survival rates, and recurrence-free survival. While PCA exhibits higher local recurrence rates than RAPN, it also presents significant advantages, such as shorter hospital stays, decreased operative durations, and lower complication rates. This juxtaposition underscores the urgent need for further, more rigorous research to substantiate these findings.