Abbas Basiri1, Jean Jmch de la Rosette2, Shahin Tabatabaei3, Henry H Woo4, M Pilar Laguna2, Hamidreza Shemshaki5. 1. Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Urology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA. 4. Sydney Adventist Hospital Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 5. Urology and Nephrology Research Center, Shahid Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. hshemshaki@sbmu.ac.ir.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study is a systematic analysis of the evidence regarding oncological, perioperative and postoperative outcomes and the cost of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS: Summary data was abstracted from 104 original research articles representing 227,400 patients. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were reviewed in December 2016. A total of 104 publications were selected for inclusion. The primary outcomes were positive surgical margin (PSM) and major complication rate according to Clavien classifications. Secondary outcomes were operative time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusions, conversions, rate of post-operative erectile dysfunction and incontinence and total cost of procedure. RESULTS: ORP had a significantly higher rate than RALP for PSM (OR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.32; p = 0.004), but the rate of PSM was not significantly different between ORP versus LRP (OR: 1.37; 95% CI 0.88-2.14; p = 0.17) and RALP versus LRP (OR: 0.83; 95% CI 0.40-1.72; p = 0.62). The major Clavien complication rate was significantly different between ORP and RALP (OR: 2.14; 95% CI 1.24-3.68; p = 0.006). Estimated blood loss, transfusions and length of hospital stay were low for RALP, moderate for LRP and high for ORP. The rate of erectile dysfunction (OR: 2.58; 95% CI 1.77-3.75; p < 0.001) and incontinence (OR: 3.57; 95% CI 2.28-5.58; p < 0.001) were significantly lower after RALP than LRP and equivalent for other comparisons. Total cost was highest for RALP, followed by LRP and ORP. CONCLUSIONS: For PSM and peri- and post-operative complications, RALP showed better results than ORP and LRP. In the context of the biases between the studies, one should interpret the results with caution.
PURPOSE: This study is a systematic analysis of the evidence regarding oncological, perioperative and postoperative outcomes and the cost of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS: Summary data was abstracted from 104 original research articles representing 227,400 patients. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were reviewed in December 2016. A total of 104 publications were selected for inclusion. The primary outcomes were positive surgical margin (PSM) and major complication rate according to Clavien classifications. Secondary outcomes were operative time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusions, conversions, rate of post-operative erectile dysfunction and incontinence and total cost of procedure. RESULTS: ORP had a significantly higher rate than RALP for PSM (OR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.32; p = 0.004), but the rate of PSM was not significantly different between ORP versus LRP (OR: 1.37; 95% CI 0.88-2.14; p = 0.17) and RALP versus LRP (OR: 0.83; 95% CI 0.40-1.72; p = 0.62). The major Clavien complication rate was significantly different between ORP and RALP (OR: 2.14; 95% CI 1.24-3.68; p = 0.006). Estimated blood loss, transfusions and length of hospital stay were low for RALP, moderate for LRP and high for ORP. The rate of erectile dysfunction (OR: 2.58; 95% CI 1.77-3.75; p < 0.001) and incontinence (OR: 3.57; 95% CI 2.28-5.58; p < 0.001) were significantly lower after RALP than LRP and equivalent for other comparisons. Total cost was highest for RALP, followed by LRP and ORP. CONCLUSIONS: For PSM and peri- and post-operative complications, RALP showed better results than ORP and LRP. In the context of the biases between the studies, one should interpret the results with caution.
Authors: Thierry Roumeguere; Renaud Bollens; Marc Vanden Bossche; Dan Rochet; David Bialek; Paul Hoffman; Thierry Quackels; Amir Damoun; Eric Wespes; Claude C Schulman; Alexandre R Zlotta Journal: World J Urol Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Thomas E Ahlering; David Woo; Louis Eichel; David I Lee; Robert Edwards; Douglas W Skarecky Journal: Urology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Giovanni B Di Pierro; Philipp Baumeister; Patrick Stucki; Josef Beatrice; Hansjörg Danuser; Agostino Mattei Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: David P Wood; Ryan Schulte; Rodney L Dunn; Brent K Hollenbeck; Richard Saur; J Stuart Wolf; James E Montie Journal: Urology Date: 2007-10-24 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Douglas M Dahl; Michael J Barry; Francis J McGovern; Yuchaio Chang; Elizabeth Walker-Corkery; W Scott McDougal Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Johannes Bründl; Sebastian Lenart; Gjoko Stojanoski; Christian Gilfrich; Bernd Rosenhammer; Michael Stolzlechner; Anton Ponholzer; Christina Dreissig; Steffen Weikert; Maximilian Burger; Matthias May Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Felix Preisser; Sebastiano Nazzani; Elio Mazzone; Sophie Knipper; Marco Bandini; Zhe Tian; Alexander Haese; Fred Saad; Kevin C Zorn; Francesco Montorsi; Shahrokh F Shariat; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Fevzi Bedir; Murat Keske; Şaban Oğuz Demirdöğen; Hüseyin Kocatürk; Erdem Koç; Abdullah Erdem Canda; Ali Fuat Atmaca Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2019-02-04
Authors: Lukas Rath; Friedrich Jokisch; Gerald Bastian Schulz; Alexander Kretschmer; Alexander Buchner; Christian G Stief; Philipp Weinhold Journal: Res Rep Urol Date: 2021-11-23