Xing Huang1, Lei Wang1, Xinmin Zheng1, Xinghuan Wang2. 1. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China. 2. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China. wangxinghuantwo@126.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has been developed with an attempt to reduce the difficulty of complex laparoscopic procedures. The goal of this study was to perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) through all relevant comparative studies. METHODS: A literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (including prospective and retrospective studies) comparing perioperative, functional, or oncologic outcomes of both LRP and RARP, and meta-analysis was applied using the Review Manager V5.3 software. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were identified in the literature search, including 2 RCTs, 7 prospective studies, and 15 retrospective studies. LRP and RARP showed similarity in the operative time, catheterization duration, in-hospital stay, and overall complication rate. However, blood loss [mean difference (MD) 75.94; p = 0.03] and transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) 2.08; p = 0.001] were lower in RARP. Moreover, RARP was associated with significantly improved outcomes for continence and potency rates to those of LRP at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate (OR 0.88; p = 0.03) was lower in LRP. However, there was no significant differences in ≤pT2 (OR 0.94; p = 0.69) and ≥pT3 (OR 0.94; p = 0.73) PSM rates between LRP and RARP. Additionally, LRP and RARP owned similar biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (OR 1.15; p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: RARP was associated with lower blood loss and transfusion rate and much greater functional outcomes in contrast to LRP. However, there was no conclusive evidence that RARP was advantaged in terms of perioperative (except for blood loss and transfusion rate) and oncologic outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has been developed with an attempt to reduce the difficulty of complex laparoscopic procedures. The goal of this study was to perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) through all relevant comparative studies. METHODS: A literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (including prospective and retrospective studies) comparing perioperative, functional, or oncologic outcomes of both LRP and RARP, and meta-analysis was applied using the Review Manager V5.3 software. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were identified in the literature search, including 2 RCTs, 7 prospective studies, and 15 retrospective studies. LRP and RARP showed similarity in the operative time, catheterization duration, in-hospital stay, and overall complication rate. However, blood loss [mean difference (MD) 75.94; p = 0.03] and transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) 2.08; p = 0.001] were lower in RARP. Moreover, RARP was associated with significantly improved outcomes for continence and potency rates to those of LRP at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate (OR 0.88; p = 0.03) was lower in LRP. However, there was no significant differences in ≤pT2 (OR 0.94; p = 0.69) and ≥pT3 (OR 0.94; p = 0.73) PSM rates between LRP and RARP. Additionally, LRP and RARP owned similar biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (OR 1.15; p = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: RARP was associated with lower blood loss and transfusion rate and much greater functional outcomes in contrast to LRP. However, there was no conclusive evidence that RARP was advantaged in terms of perioperative (except for blood loss and transfusion rate) and oncologic outcomes.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Raymond C Rosen; Walter Artibani; Peter R Carroll; Anthony Costello; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul R Patel; Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Henk Van der Poel; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jim C Hu; Rebecca A Nelson; Timothy G Wilson; Mark H Kawachi; S Adam Ramin; Clayton Lau; Laura E Crocitto Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nicolas Koutlidis; Eric Mourey; Jacqueline Champigneulle; Philippe Mangin; Luc Cormier Journal: Int J Urol Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.369
Authors: B Rocco; A A C Grasso; E De Lorenzis; J W Davis; C Abbou; A Breda; T Erdogru; R Gaston; I S Gill; E Liatsikos; B Oktay; J Palou; T Piéchaud; J U Stolzenburg; Y Sun; G Albo; H Villavicencio; X Zhang; V Disanto; P Emiliozzi; V Pansadoro Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: A Floortje van Oosten; Ding Ding; Joseph R Habib; Ahmer Irfan; Ryan K Schmocker; Elisabetta Sereni; Benedict Kinny-Köster; Michael Wright; Vincent P Groot; I Quintus Molenaar; John L Cameron; Martin Makary; Richard A Burkhart; William R Burns; Christopher L Wolfgang; Jin He Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ketevan Paliashvili; Francesco Di Maggio; Hei Ming Kenneth Ho; Sanjayan Sathasivam; Hashim Ahmed; Richard M Day Journal: Drug Deliv Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 6.419