Is secondary robotic pyeloplasty safe and effective as primary robotic pyeloplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RLP) has excellent surgical safety and efficacy in primary pyeloplasty. In recent, the application of robotics has explored to more complex surgical conditions such as failed pyeloplasty. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the surgical and clinical outcomes of secondary RLP compared with primary RLP. Following PRISMA guidelines, we carried out an extensive literature search in the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar to extract the published articles comparing primary vs. secondary RLP up to April 2019. Interested surgical and clinical outcomes were extracted from each study and then used RevMan 5.3 Software for meta-analysis comparison. Furthermore, the quality of each study was assessed using the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Our search has yielded seven studies that met our inclusion criteria. These studies contained 613 vs. 107 patients in primary vs. secondary RLP, respectively. Using random effect model, the analysis showed no statistical difference between the groups in the presence of a crossing vessel, complications, length of hospital stays (LOS), and follow-up period. However, the operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and recurrence rate were significantly higher in the secondary RLP compared with primary RLP (p = 0.004), (p = 0.01), and (p = 0.04), respectively. Our results indicate that secondary RLP is associated with significantly increased operative time and EBL and higher recurrence rates compared with primary RLP. We believe that our findings might help surgeon's decision making in patient selection and consultation during redo pyeloplasty surgical planning.