OBJECTIVES: Despite the wide diffusion of minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), few studies compare the results of these techniques with the retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) approach. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost-effectiveness of RRP, LRP, and RALP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases in December 2013. A 'free-text' protocol using the term 'radical prostatectomy' was applied. A total of 16,085 records were found. The authors reviewed the records to identify comparative studies to include in the review. RESULTS: 44 comparative studies were identified. With regard to the perioperative outcome, LRP and RALP were more time-consuming than RRP, but blood loss, transfusion rates, catheterisation time, hospitalisation duration, and complication rates were the most optimal in the laparoscopic approaches. With regard to the functional and oncological results, RALP was found to have the best outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed the well-known perioperative advantage of minimally invasive techniques; however, available data were not sufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of functional and oncologic outcomes. On the contrary, cost comparison clearly supports RRP.
OBJECTIVES: Despite the wide diffusion of minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), few studies compare the results of these techniques with the retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) approach. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost-effectiveness of RRP, LRP, and RALP. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases in December 2013. A 'free-text' protocol using the term 'radical prostatectomy' was applied. A total of 16,085 records were found. The authors reviewed the records to identify comparative studies to include in the review. RESULTS: 44 comparative studies were identified. With regard to the perioperative outcome, LRP and RALP were more time-consuming than RRP, but blood loss, transfusion rates, catheterisation time, hospitalisation duration, and complication rates were the most optimal in the laparoscopic approaches. With regard to the functional and oncological results, RALP was found to have the best outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed the well-known perioperative advantage of minimally invasive techniques; however, available data were not sufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of functional and oncologic outcomes. On the contrary, cost comparison clearly supports RRP.
Authors: Robin Wm Vernooij; Michelle Lancee; Anne Cleves; Philipp Dahm; Chris H Bangma; Katja Kh Aben Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-04
Authors: Jens Uwe Stolzenburg; Iason Kyriazis; Claus Fahlenbrach; Christian Gilfrich; Christian Günster; Elke Jeschke; Gralf Popken; Lothar Weißbach; Christoph von Zastrow; Hanna Leicht Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 4.226