-
Medicine May 2019To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) comparing with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with clinically localized prostate cancer through all prospective comparative studies.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed in August 2018 using the Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies including patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for study inclusion. Cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Two RCTs and 9 prospective studies were included in this systematic review. There were no significant differences between RARP/LRP and ORP in overall complication rate, major complication rate, overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, ≤pT2 tumor PSM rate, ≥pT3 tumor PSM rate. Moreover, RARP/LRP and ORP showed similarity in biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 12, 24 months postoperatively. Urinary continence and erectile function at 12 months postoperatively between RARP and ORP are also comparable. RARP/LRP were associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss [mean difference (MD) -749.67, 95% CI -1038.52 to -460.82, P = .001], lower transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30, P < .001) and less hospitalization duration (MD -1.18, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.19, P = .02). And RARP/LRP required more operative time (MD 50.02, 95% CI 6.50 to 93.55, P = .02) and cost.
CONCLUSION
RARP/LRP is associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rate and less hospitalization duration. The available data were insufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of postoperative complications, functional and oncologic outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Margins of Excision; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31145297
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015770 -
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2019Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents an important acquired risk factor for the development of primary inguinal hernias (IH) with an estimated incidence rates of 15.9%... (Review)
Review
Safety, feasibility and clinical outcome of minimally invasive inguinal hernia repair in patients with previous radical prostatectomy: A systematic review of the literature.
BACKGROUND
Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents an important acquired risk factor for the development of primary inguinal hernias (IH) with an estimated incidence rates of 15.9% within the first 2 years after surgery. The prostatectomy-related preperitoneal fibrotic reaction can make the laparoendoscopic repair of the IH technically difficult, even if safety and feasibility have not been extensively evaluated yet. We conducted a systematic review of the available literature.
METHODS
A comprehensive computer literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Terms used to search were ('laparoscopic' OR 'laparoscopy') AND ('inguinal' OR 'groin' OR 'hernia') AND 'prostatectomy'.
RESULTS
The literature search from PubMed and MEDLINE databases revealed 156 articles. Five articles were considered eligible for the analysis, including 229 patients who underwent 277 hernia repairs. The pooled analysis indicates no statistically significant difference of post-operative complications (Risk Ratios [RR] 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-4.97), conversion to open surgery (RR 3.91; 95% CI 0.85-18.04) and recurrence of hernia (RR 1.39; 95% CI 0.39-4.93) between the post-prostatectomy group and the control group. There was a statistically significant difference of minor intraoperative complications (RR 4.42; CI 1.05-18.64), due to an injury of the inferior epigastric vessels.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review suggests that, in experienced hands, safety, feasibility and clinical outcomes of minimally invasive repair of IH in patients previously treated with prostatectomy, are comparable to those patients without previous RP.
PubMed: 30416142
DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_218_18 -
Arab Journal of Urology Sep 2018To evaluate the recent developments in robotic urological surgery, as the introduction of robotic technology has overcome many of the difficulties of pure laparoscopic... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the recent developments in robotic urological surgery, as the introduction of robotic technology has overcome many of the difficulties of pure laparoscopic surgery enabling surgeons to perform complex minimally invasive procedures with a shorter learning curve. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) is now offered as the standard for various surgical procedures across multiple specialities.
METHODS
A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed to identify studies evaluating robot-assisted simple prostatectomy, salvage radical prostatectomy, surgery for urolithiasis, distal ureteric reconstruction, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, augmentation ileocystoplasty, and artificial urinary sphincter insertion. Article titles, abstracts, and full text manuscripts were screened to identify relevant studies, which then underwent data extraction and analysis.
RESULTS
In all, 72 studies evaluating the above techniques were identified. Almost all studies were retrospective single-arm case series. RAS appears to be associated with reduced morbidity, less blood loss, reduced length of stay, and comparable clinical outcomes in comparison to the corresponding open procedures, whilst having a shorter operative duration and learning curve compared to the equivalent laparoscopic techniques.
CONCLUSION
Emerging data demonstrate that the breadth and complexity of urological procedures performed using the da Vinci® platform (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is continually expanding. There is a gaining consensus that RAS is producing promising surgical results in a wide range of procedures. A major limitation of the current literature is the sparsity of comparative trials evaluating these procedures.
PubMed: 30147957
DOI: 10.1016/j.aju.2018.05.005 -
Current Urology Reports Nov 2017Bladder neck preservation (BNP) during radical prostatectomy (RP) has been proposed as a method to improve early recovery of urinary continence after radical... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Bladder neck preservation (BNP) during radical prostatectomy (RP) has been proposed as a method to improve early recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. However, there is concern over a possible increase in the risk of positive surgical margins and prostate cancer recurrence rate. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis reported improved early recovery and overall long-term urinary continence without compromising oncologic control. The aim of our study was to perform a critical review of the literature to assess the impact on bladder neck and base margins after bladder neck sparing radical prostatectomy.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We carried out a systematic review of the literature using Pubmed, Scopus and Cochrane library databases in May 2017 using medical subject headings and free-text protocol according to PRISMA guidelines. We used the following search terms: bladder neck preservation, prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy and surgical margins. Studies focusing on positive surgical margins (PSM) in bladder neck sparing RP pertinent to the objective of this review were included.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall, we found 15 relevant studies reporting overall and site-specific positive surgical margins rate after bladder neck sparing radical prostatectomy. This included two RCTs, seven prospective comparative studies, two retrospective comparative studies and four case series. All studies were published between 1993 and 2015 with sample sizes ranging between 50 and 1067. Surgical approaches included open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. The overall and base-specific PSM rates ranged between 7-36% and 0-16.3%, respectively. Mean base PSM was 4.9% in those patients where bladder neck sparing was performed, but only 1.85% in those without sparing. Bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy may increase base-positive margins. Further studies are needed to better investigate the impact of this technique on oncological outcomes. A future paradigm could include modification of intended approach to bladder neck dissection when anterior base lesions are identified on pre-operative MRI.
Topics: Dissection; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Margins of Excision; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder
PubMed: 29116405
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-017-0745-0 -
Archivos Espanoles de Urologia Nov 2017The aim of this article is to classify and describe the different types of complications of radical prostatectomy, their frequency of appearance, as well as the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this article is to classify and describe the different types of complications of radical prostatectomy, their frequency of appearance, as well as the different factors that may influence their development.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was carried out, based on the search of published articles between 2002 and 2015.
RESULTS
Laparoscopic or robotic radical prostatectomy may require conversion into open surgery, and these cases are significantly associated with longer hospital stay and greater rate of complications. Vascular damage comprises from injuries to small and medium caliber vessels (Santorini plexus or epigastric vessels) to possible lesions of large vessels (iliac), although they are infrequent. The most common nerve injury is that of the obturator nerve, which can be treated in the case of a complete section, and in incomplete lesions, damage is usually reversible. Intestinal injury is one of the most serious complications because it could be lifethreatening. Rectal injury is a complication that needs a correct diagnosis and intraoperative treatment, since it may lead to the development of a secondary rectourethral fistula. Such fistulae in most cases require surgical treatment. Lymphocele is a characteristic complication of radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy, requiring treatment only in cases of complication. Anastomotic leakage is a frequent complication, and a prognostic factor for the later development of anastomosis stricture. Some of the factors that seem to influence the development of complications are associated comorbidity, anatomical factors, surgical approach and surgical experience, among others.
CONCLUSIONS
It is crucial to know the potential complications of radical prostatectomy, as well as the associated risk factors, in order to avoid their appearance.
Topics: Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Rectal Fistula; Rectum; Urethral Diseases; Urinary Fistula
PubMed: 29099379
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Organ Size; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Sexual Behavior; Urination
PubMed: 28895658
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2017Men with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer are typically asked to choose from a variety of treatment options, including active surveillance, radical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Men with low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer are typically asked to choose from a variety of treatment options, including active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, or brachytherapy. The Prolaris cell cycle progression test is intended to provide additional information on personal risk status to assist men with prostate cancer in their choice of treatment. To assist with assessing that new technology, this report synthesizes qualitative research on how men with prostate cancer use information to make decisions about treatment options.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis to retrieve and synthesize findings across primary qualitative studies that report on patient perspectives during prostate cancer treatment decision-making.
RESULTS
Of 8,610 titles and abstracts reviewed, 29 studies are included in this report. Most men diagnosed with prostate cancer express that their information-seeking pathway extends beyond the medical information received from their health care provider. They access other social resources to attain additional medical information, lived-experience information, and medical administrative information to help support their final treatment decision. Men value privacy, trust, honesty, control, power, organization, and open communication during interactions with their health care providers. They also emphasize the importance of gaining comfort with their treatment choice, having a chance to confirm their health care provider's recommendations (validation of treatment plan), and exercising their preferred level of independence in the treatment decision-making process.
CONCLUSIONS
Although each prostate cancer patient is unique, studies suggest that most patients seek extensive information to help inform their treatment decisions. This may happen before, during, and after the treatment choice is made. Given the amount of information patients may access, it is important that they also establish the trustworthiness of the various types and sources of information. When information conflicts, patients may be unsure about how to proceed. Open collaboration between patients and their health care providers can help patients manage and navigate their concerns so that their values and perspectives are captured in their treatment choices.
Topics: Cell Proliferation; Clinical Decision-Making; Clinical Laboratory Techniques; Consumer Health Information; Gene Expression; Humans; Information Seeking Behavior; Male; Prognosis; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors
PubMed: 28572868
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Rapid implementation of robotic transabdominal surgery has resulted in the need for re-evaluation of the most suitable form of anaesthesia. The overall objective of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rapid implementation of robotic transabdominal surgery has resulted in the need for re-evaluation of the most suitable form of anaesthesia. The overall objective of anaesthesia is to minimize perioperative risk and discomfort for patients both during and after surgery. Anaesthesia for patients undergoing robotic assisted surgery is different from anaesthesia for patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery; new anaesthetic concerns accompany robotic assisted surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess outcomes related to the choice of total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) or inhalational anaesthesia for adults undergoing transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic gynaecological, urological or gastroenterological surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016 Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to May 2016), Embase via OvidSP (1982 to May 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCOhost (1982 to May 2016) and the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1956 to May 2016). We also searched the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry and Clinical trials gov for ongoing trials (May 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults, aged 18 years and older, of both genders, treated with transabdominal robotic assisted laparoscopic gynaecological, urological or gastroenterological surgery and focusing on outcomes of TIVA or inhalational anaesthesia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. Study findings were not suitable for meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three single-centre, two-arm RCTs involving 170 participants. We found one ongoing trial. All included participants were male and were undergoing radical robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP). The men were between 50 and 75 years of age and met criteria for American Society of Anesthesiologists physical classification scores (ASA) I, ll and III.We found evidence showing no clinically meaningful differences in postoperative pain between the two types of anaesthetics (mean difference (MD) in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at one to six hours was -2.20 (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.62 to 6.22; P = 0.61) in a sample of 62 participants from one study. Low-quality evidence suggests that propofol reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) over the short term (one to six hours after surgery) after RALRP compared with inhalational anaesthesia (sevoflurane, desflurane) (MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.59 to -0.81; P = 0.0002).We found low-quality evidence suggesting that propofol may prevent an increase in intraocular pressure (IOP) after pneumoperitoneum and steep Trendelenburg positioning compared with sevoflurane (MD -3.90, 95% CI -6.34 to -1.46; P = 0.002) with increased IOP from baseline to 30 minutes in steep Trendelenburg. However, it is unclear whether this surrogate outcome translates directly to clinical avoidance of ocular complications during surgery. No studies addressed the secondary outcomes of adverse effects, all-cause mortality, respiratory or circulatory complications, cognitive dysfunction, length of stay or costs. Overall the quality of evidence was low to very low, as all studies were small, single-centre trials providing unclear descriptions of methods.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear which anaesthetic technique is superior - TIVA or inhalational - for transabdominal robotic assisted surgery in urology, gynaecology and gastroenterology, as existing evidence is scarce, is of low quality and has been generated from exclusively male patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy.An ongoing trial, which includes participants of both genders with a focus on quality of recovery, might have an impact on future evidence related to this topic.
Topics: Aged; Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Inhalation; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Propofol; Prostatectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 28374886
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011387.pub2 -
European Urology Feb 2018Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis involves balancing a lower risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) against a higher risk of bleeding, a trade-off that critically depends... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis involves balancing a lower risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) against a higher risk of bleeding, a trade-off that critically depends on the risks of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis (baseline risk).
OBJECTIVE
To provide estimates of the baseline risk of symptomatic VTE and bleeding requiring reoperation in urological cancer surgery.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We identified contemporary observational studies reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding after urological procedures. We used studies with the lowest risk of bias and accounted for use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up to derive best estimates of the baseline risks within 4 wk of surgery. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We included 71 studies reporting on 14 urological cancer procedures. The quality of the evidence was generally moderate for prostatectomy and cystectomy, and low or very low for other procedures. The duration of thromboprophylaxis was highly variable. The risk of VTE in cystectomies was high (2.6-11.6% across risk groups) whereas the risk of bleeding was low (0.3%). The risk of VTE in prostatectomies varied by procedure, from 0.2-0.9% in robotic prostatectomy without pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) to 3.9-15.7% in open prostatectomy with extended PLND. The risk of bleeding was 0.1-1.0%. The risk of VTE following renal procedures was 0.7-2.9% for low-risk patients and 2.6-11.6% for high-risk patients; the risk of bleeding was 0.1-2.0%.
CONCLUSIONS
Extended thromboprophylaxis is warranted in some procedures (eg, open and robotic cystectomy) but not others (eg, robotic prostatectomy without PLND in low-risk patients). For "close call" procedures, decisions will depend on values and preferences with regard to VTE and bleeding.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Clinicians often give blood thinners to patients to prevent blood clots after surgery for urological cancer. Unfortunately, blood thinners also increase bleeding. This study provides information on the risk of clots and bleeding that is crucial in deciding for or against giving blood thinners.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Risk Assessment; Urologic Neoplasms; Urologic Surgical Procedures; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 28342641
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.008 -
Yonsei Medical Journal Sep 2016To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies.
RESULTS
A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up.
CONCLUSION
RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.
Topics: Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 27401648
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165