Access to robotic assisted kidney transplant for recipients: a systematic review and call for reporting standards

Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is a relatively novel, minimally invasive option for kidney transplantation. However, clarity on recipient selection in the published literature is lacking thereby significantly limiting interpretation of safety and other outcomes. This systematic review...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of robotic surgery 2024-06, Vol.18 (1), p.239
Main Authors: Malinzak, Lauren, Gartrelle, Kendyll, Sragi, Zara, Segal, Antu, Prashar, Rohini, Jesse, Michelle T.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Data collection
Grey literature
Kidney transplants
Literature reviews
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Minimally Invasive Surgery
Patients
Quality of life
Review
Surgery
Synthesis
Systematic review
Urology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Robot-assisted kidney transplantation (RAKT) is a relatively novel, minimally invasive option for kidney transplantation. However, clarity on recipient selection in the published literature is lacking thereby significantly limiting interpretation of safety and other outcomes. This systematic review aimed to identify and synthesize the data on selection of RAKT recipients, compare the synthesized data to kidney transplant recipients across the USA, and explore geographical clusters of availability of RAKT. Systematic literature review, in accordance with PRISMA, via OVID MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of science from inception to March 5, 2023. All data entry double blinded and quality via Newcastle Ottawa Scale. 44 full-text articles included, encompassing approximately 2402 kidney transplant recipients at baseline but with considerable suspicion for overlap across publications. There were significant omissions of information across studies on patient selection for RAKT and/or analysis. Overall, the quality of studies was very low. Given suspicion of overlap across studies, it is difficult to determine how many RAKT recipients received living (LD) versus deceased donor (DD) organs, but a rough estimate suggests 89% received LD. While the current RAKT literature provides preliminary evidence on safety, there are significant omissions in reporting on patient selection for RAKT which limits interpretation of findings. Two recommendations: (1) international consensus is needed for reporting guidelines when publishing RAKT data and (2) larger controlled trials consistently reporting recipient characteristics are needed to clearly determine selection, safety, and outcomes across both LD and DD recipients.
ISSN:1863-2483
1863-2491
1863-2491
DOI:10.1007/s11701-024-01927-5