Junyan Liu1, Jindong Zhang2, Zongke Yang3, Qingyuan Liu2, Weiyang Zhang2, Zizhen Qing2, Delin Wang4. 1. Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. 2. Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. 3. Department of Urology, Dianjiang People's Hospital of Chongqing, Chongqing, 408399, China. 4. Department of Urology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China. dlwangws@sina.com.
Abstract
ABSTACT: BACKGROUND: Studies comparing C-RARP and RS-RARP have reported different results and the choice between the two operation methods remains controversia. METHODS: We present the meta-analysis on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Stata SE 14.0. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the results of continuous data; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI were used to describe dichotomous data. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The meta-analysis revealed that RS-RARP had a statistically significant advantage in terms of continence recovery immediately after operation (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20-0.77; P = 0.007) (Fig. 2a), after 1 month (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10-0.29; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2b), after 3 months (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.09-0.36; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2c), after 6 months (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.46; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2d) and after 12 months (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28-0.89; P = 0.02) (Fig. 2e). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found that RS-RARP had better postoperative continence recovery than C-RARP, while sexual function recovery rates were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, positive margin rate and complications.
ABSTACT: BACKGROUND: Studies comparing C-RARP and RS-RARP have reported different results and the choice between the two operation methods remains controversia. METHODS: We present the meta-analysis on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Stata SE 14.0. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the results of continuous data; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI were used to describe dichotomous data. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: The meta-analysis revealed that RS-RARP had a statistically significant advantage in terms of continence recovery immediately after operation (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20-0.77; P = 0.007) (Fig. 2a), after 1 month (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10-0.29; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2b), after 3 months (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.09-0.36; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2c), after 6 months (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.46; P < 0.00001) (Fig. 2d) and after 12 months (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28-0.89; P = 0.02) (Fig. 2e). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found that RS-RARP had better postoperative continence recovery than C-RARP, while sexual function recovery rates were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, positive margin rate and complications.
Authors: David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A Stewart Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2015-01-01