Jerry Kong1, Benjamin Lichtbroun1,2, Joshua Sterling3, Yaqun Wang4, Qingyang Wang5, Eric A Singer1,2, Thomas L Jang1,2, Saum Ghodoussipour1,2, Isaac Yi Kim6. 1. Section of Urologic Oncology, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey New Jersey, USA. 2. Division of Urology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School New Jersey, USA. 3. Department of Urology, SUNY Upstate Medical University New York, USA. 4. Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health New Jersey, USA. 5. Rutgers School of Arts and Sciences New Jersey, USA. 6. Department of Urology, Yale School of Medicine New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is widely performed for staging in men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Our goal was to synthesize all available evidence and data to evaluate perioperative complications for two templates of PLND, standard (sPLND) vs extended (ePLND), at the time of RP in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed on relevant literature about complications during PLND. Pubmed, Scopus, WebofScience, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched through July 2021. Meta-analysis was conducted with both fixed-effects and random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) between treatments. A subgroup analysis was also conducted based on surgery type - open vs robotic. RESULTS: 13 (1 randomized clinical trial and 12 observational studies) studies published between 1997 and 2019 with a total of 7,036 patients were analyzed. Pooled data showed complications in a random-effects model was lower in the sPLND group than the ePLND group (RR, 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.97). In a subgroup analysis, neither the open surgery subgroup nor the robotic surgery subgroup showed significant differences in complication rate between sPLND and ePLND. CONCLUSION: ePLND is associated with a significantly greater risk of perioperative complication compared to sPLND, but not when comparing these templates performed via a robotic approach. Additional studies comparing the complication rates of sPLND and ePLND when utilizing a robotic approach should be conducted. AJCEU
INTRODUCTION: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is widely performed for staging in men undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Our goal was to synthesize all available evidence and data to evaluate perioperative complications for two templates of PLND, standard (sPLND) vs extended (ePLND), at the time of RP in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed on relevant literature about complications during PLND. Pubmed, Scopus, WebofScience, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched through July 2021. Meta-analysis was conducted with both fixed-effects and random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) between treatments. A subgroup analysis was also conducted based on surgery type - open vs robotic. RESULTS: 13 (1 randomized clinical trial and 12 observational studies) studies published between 1997 and 2019 with a total of 7,036 patients were analyzed. Pooled data showed complications in a random-effects model was lower in the sPLND group than the ePLND group (RR, 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.97). In a subgroup analysis, neither the open surgery subgroup nor the robotic surgery subgroup showed significant differences in complication rate between sPLND and ePLND. CONCLUSION: ePLND is associated with a significantly greater risk of perioperative complication compared to sPLND, but not when comparing these templates performed via a robotic approach. Additional studies comparing the complication rates of sPLND and ePLND when utilizing a robotic approach should be conducted. AJCEU
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Akshay Sood; Jacob Keeley; Isaac Palma-Zamora; Deepansh Dalela; Sohrab Arora; James O Peabody; Craig G Rogers; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Alberto Briganti; Firas Abdollah Journal: BJU Int Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Muammer Altok; Kara Babaian; Mary F Achim; Grace C Achim; Patricia Troncoso; Surena F Matin; Brian F Chapin; John W Davis Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: B Rousseau; L Doucet; M-A Perrouin Verbe; G Papin; A Erauso; V Joulin; C Deruelle; A Valeri; G Fournier Journal: Prog Urol Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 0.915
Authors: Nicola Fossati; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Thomas Van den Broeck; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Erik Briers; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Philip Cornford; Maria De Santis; Ekelechi MacPepple; Ann M Henry; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Thomas B Lam; Nicolas Mottet; Steven Joniau Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Michael L Blute; James H Eastham; Markus Graefen; Axel Heidenreich; Jeffrey R Karnes; Francesco Montorsi; Urs E Studer Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 7.450