A focused systematic review and meta-analysis of robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy versus open inguinal lymph...

This focused systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated robot-assisted inguinal lymphadenectomy (RAIL) versus open inguinal lymph node dissection (OILND) in penile cancer, aiming to provide robot-specific comparative estimates rather than a broad minimally invasive synthesis. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched through December 2025 for comparative studies. All meta-analyses were conducted using STATA 18, employing random-effects modeling. Binary outcomes were summarized using odds ratios (ORs), and continuous outcomes were presented as weighted mean differences (WMDs), with all estimates accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias in the included non-randomized comparative studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Four retrospective comparative studies involving 276 patients were included, and no randomized controlled trials were identified. A lower odds of total postoperative complications was observed with RAIL (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.27, 0.97; P = 0.047), but this borderline finding should be interpreted cautiously given the small number of retrospective studies and potential residual confounding. Across individual studies, operative time generally tended to be longer with RAIL, whereas findings for estimated blood loss and drainage-related outcomes were inconsistent. Lymph node yield, skin-related complications, minor complications, and groins with positive nodes did not differ significantly between approaches. According to the GRADE assessment, the certainty of evidence was low for most pooled outcomes and very low for skin-related complications and lower-limb edema/lymphedema. RAIL may be associated with lower overall postoperative complications than open surgery, but the evidence remains low certainty and insufficient to establish a definitive morbidity-reduction benefit. In addition, several continuous perioperative variables showed extreme between-study heterogeneity and were not clinically interpretable as reliable pooled effects.