Retrospective Study
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Clin Urol. Nov 24, 2014; 3(3): 358-363
Published online Nov 24, 2014. doi: 10.5410/wjcu.v3.i3.358
Table 1 The surgical relevant data of all studies
Ref.nRoboticAge (yr)BMIMean tumorMean operativeMeanLength ofMean ischemiaTransfusionComplication > IIIAdditional trocarsPositiveVASConversionConversion
size (cm)time (min)EBL (mL)stay (d)time (min)rate (%)grade clavien% (diameter)marginsin MLSin OS
Desai et al[20]60622532704757.22002100% (6 mm × 2 mm; 1 mm × 5 mm)0---
White et al[21]154--3.011964224.5NA26013% (NA)1621
2Kaouk et al[16]7263.527.52.11652603.30 in 6 pts 16 in 1 pts14014% (NA)11.35--
Choi et al[15]5956--2.62121714.527.5131Most of the cases (12 mm)2-22
Bazzi et al[22]17060.626.81.8176.6170.63.428.603001.5811
2Rais-Bahrami et al[23]15 (14 pts)057.929.32.3167.3293.32.724.6 (9 pts) 0 (6 pts)020 (1 case converted LPN)02.110
1Tiu et al[24]676752.423.22.4 (47)17827142410.640Cases right 52-00
51.924.75.4 (20)1974085.331100mm-trocar1-01
Schips et al[19]21058.4251.81111964.400250% (2 mm × 3 mm; 5 mm × 5 mm)22.130
Springer et al[18]14052.526.22120165400076% (11 mm × 3 mm)0100