LAUSR

OBJECTIVE To compare the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RA-RPLND) versus non-robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (NR-RPLND) in testicular cancer. METHODS The statistical analysis software used Stata17. The weighted mean difference (WMD) represents the continuous variable, and the dichotomous variable chooses the odds ratio (OR), and calculates the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). This systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA criteria, and AMSTAR guidelines (assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews). The Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. The upper limit of the search time frame was February 2023, and no lower limit was set. RESULTS Seven studies involving 862 patients. Compared with open retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, RA-RPLND appears to have a shorter length of stay (WMD=-1.21, 95%CI [-1.66, -0.76], P<0.05), less estimated blood loss (WMD=-0.69, 95%CI [-1.07, -0.32], P<0.05), and lower overall complications (OR=0.45, 95%CI [0.28, 0.73], P<0.05). RA-RPLND appears to have more lymph node yields than laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (WMD=5.73, 95% CI [1.06, 10.40], P<0.05). However, robotic versus open/laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection had similar results in operation time, lymph node positivity rate, recurrence during follow-up, and postoperative ejaculation disorders. CONCLUSION Robotic-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection appears to be safe and effective for testicular cancer, but longer follow-up and more studies are needed to confirm this.