Ze'an Li1,2, Kaiwen Li1,2, Wanhua Wu1,2, Qiong Wang1,2, Xiaoming Ma1,2, Chunhao Lin1,2, Shengmeng Peng1,2, Yiming Lai1,2, Fen Wang3, Hai Huang1,2,3. 1. Department of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China. 2. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Malignant Tumor Epigenetics and Gene Regulation, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510120, China. 3. Center for Cancer and Stem Cell Biology, Institute of Biosciences and Technology, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The transurethral catheter (TUC) or supra-pubic catheter is commonly used after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, the best way of urine drainage after the operation is still controversial. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science databases and the reference lists of relevant articles was performed up to July 2019. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies assessing the two techniques. RESULTS: In total, nine studies (1,121 patients) were eligible, including three RCTs, one prospective and five retrospective studies. After RARP, postoperative pain was less in suprapubic catheter (SPC) group than TC group, both within 3 days [mean difference (MD): -0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.37 to -0.02; P=0.04] and 5 days after operation (MD: -0.96; 95% CI: -1.39 to -0.52; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference between SPC and TUC groups, in operation time (MD: 2.58; 95% CI: -5.82 to 10.97; P=0.55) and at rates of both catheterization-associated complication [odds ratio (OR): 1.05; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64; P=0.83] and long-term urinary incontinence (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12; P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in SPC group suffer from less postoperative pain compared with the TUC group. SPC can be a better alternate of TUC. 2019 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The transurethral catheter (TUC) or supra-pubic catheter is commonly used after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, the best way of urine drainage after the operation is still controversial. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science databases and the reference lists of relevant articles was performed up to July 2019. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies assessing the two techniques. RESULTS: In total, nine studies (1,121 patients) were eligible, including three RCTs, one prospective and five retrospective studies. After RARP, postoperative pain was less in suprapubic catheter (SPC) group than TC group, both within 3 days [mean difference (MD): -0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.37 to -0.02; P=0.04] and 5 days after operation (MD: -0.96; 95% CI: -1.39 to -0.52; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference between SPC and TUC groups, in operation time (MD: 2.58; 95% CI: -5.82 to 10.97; P=0.55) and at rates of both catheterization-associated complication [odds ratio (OR): 1.05; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64; P=0.83] and long-term urinary incontinence (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12; P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in SPC group suffer from less postoperative pain compared with the TUC group. SPC can be a better alternate of TUC. 2019 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Sandip M Prasad; Michael C Large; Amit R Patel; Olufenwa Famakinwa; R Matthew Galocy; Theodore Karrison; Arieh L Shalhav; Gregory P Zagaja Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lindsey A Torre; Freddie Bray; Rebecca L Siegel; Jacques Ferlay; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Nina Harke; Michael Godes; Jawid Habibzada; Katarina Urbanova; Christian Wagner; Henrik Zecha; Mustapha Addali; Jorn H Witt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 4.226