-
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 -
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 -
The Canadian Journal of Urology Oct 2015Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is arguably the most common benign disease of mankind. As men age, the prostate inexorably grows often causing troubling symptoms... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is arguably the most common benign disease of mankind. As men age, the prostate inexorably grows often causing troubling symptoms causing them to seek out care. While traditionally treated by transurethral resection or open surgical removal of the hypertrophied adenoma, today the urologist has numerous medical, surgical and minimally invasive techniques available. In this supplement The Canadian Journal of Urology provides a review of the various techniques and medications available today.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
As an introduction to the supplement, the aim of this article is to review the epidemiology and economy of BPH as well as its natural history and diagnosis. A systematic review of available literature was looking for articles on BPH and its epidemiology, economics, natural history and management using PubMed database.
RESULTS
The prevalence of this condition is increasing with the population aging and so does the economic burden. The exact etiology of this condition is unknown, but some risk factors have been identified. The diagnostic and treatment of this very common disease should rely on a strong collaboration between primary care physician and urologist.
CONCLUSION
There are multiple options in treating BPH including medical, surgical and newer minimally invasive options. The challenge with having a variety of options is to review them with the patient and help the patient select the best treatment option for their condition.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Biopsy, Needle; Health Care Costs; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Incidence; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Risk Assessment; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 26497338
DOI: No ID Found -
Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain... Aug 2021The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is... (Review)
Review
The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is known to influence postoperative recovery, but patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy typically experience moderate dynamic pain in the immediate postoperative day. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery may be associated with decreased pain levels as opposed to open surgery. We performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) with PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language, from January 2015 until March 2020, assessing postoperative pain, using analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions, were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases. Of the 1797 studies identified, 35 RCTs and 3 meta-analyses met our inclusion criteria. NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors proved to lower postoperative pain scores. Continuous intravenous lidocaine reduced postoperative pain scores during open surgery. Local wound infiltration showed positive results in open surgery. Bilateral transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block was performed at the end of surgery and lowered pain scores in robot-assisted procedures, but results were conflicting for open procedures. Basic analgesia for prostatic surgery should include paracetamol and NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors. TAP block should be recommended as the first-choice regional analgesic technique for laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy. Intravenous lidocaine should be considered for open surgeries.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 34197976
DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100922 -
JAMA Network Open Feb 2021Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Combining 2 first-line treatments for erectile dysfunction (ED) or initiating other modalities in addition to a first-line therapy may produce beneficial outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether different ED combination therapies were associated with improved outcomes compared with first-line ED monotherapy in various subgroups of patients with ED.
DATA SOURCES
Studies were identified through a systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus from inception of these databases to October 10, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials or prospective interventional studies of the outcomes of combination therapy vs recommended monotherapy in men with ED were identified. Only comparative human studies, which evaluated the change from baseline of self-reported erectile function using validated questionnaires, that were published in any language were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data extraction and synthesis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
A meta-analysis was conducted that included randomized clinical trials that compared outcomes of combination therapy with phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors plus another agent vs PDE5 inhibitor monotherapy. Separate analyses were performed for the mean International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score change from baseline and the number of adverse events (AEs) by different treatment modalities and subgroups of patients.
RESULTS
A total of 44 studies included 3853 men with a mean (SD) age of 55.8 (11.9) years. Combination therapy compared with monotherapy was associated with a mean IIEF score improvement of 1.76 points (95% CI, 1.27-2.24; I2 = 77%; 95% PI, -0.56 to 4.08). Adding daily tadalafil, low-intensity shockwave therapy, vacuum erectile device, folic acid, metformin hydrochloride, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors was associated with a significant IIEF score improvement, but each measure was based on only 1 study. Specifically, the weighted mean difference (WMD) in IIEF score was 1.70 (95% CI, 0.79-2.61) for the addition of daily tadalafil, 3.50 (95% CI, 0.22-6.78) for the addition of low-intensity shockwave therapy, 8.40 (95% CI, 4.90-11.90) for the addition of a vacuum erectile device, 3.46 (95% CI, 2.16-4.76) for the addition of folic acid, 4.90 (95% CI, 2.82-6.98) for the addition of metformin hydrochloride and 2.07 (95% CI, 1.37-2.77) for the addition of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The addition of α-blockers to PDE5 inhibitors was not associated with improvement in IIEF score (WMD, 0.80; 95% CI, -0.06 to 1.65; I2 = 72%). Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy was associated with improved IIEF score in patients with hypogonadism (WMD, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.99-2.23; I2 = 0%), monotherapy-resistant ED (WMD, 4.38; 95% CI, 2.37-6.40; I2 = 52%), or prostatectomy-induced ED (WMD, 5.47; 95% CI, 3.11-7.83; I2 = 53%). The treatment-related AEs did not differ between combination therapy and monotherapy (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.85; I2 = 78%). Despite multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the levels of heterogeneity remained high.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study found that combination therapy of PDE5 inhibitors and antioxidants was associated with improved ED without increasing the AEs. Treatment with PDE5 inhibitors and daily tadalafil, shockwaves, or a vacuum device was associated with additional improvement, but this result was based on limited data. These findings suggest that combination therapy is safe, associated with improved outcomes, and should be considered as a first-line therapy for refractory, complex, or difficult-to-treat cases of ED.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antioxidants; Combined Modality Therapy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Equipment and Supplies; Erectile Dysfunction; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Folic Acid; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Male; Metformin; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil; Treatment Outcome; Vitamin B Complex
PubMed: 33599772
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.36337 -
European Urology Open Science Oct 2022The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study selection process for SR means that a lot of information can be excluded, leading to a very specific clinical scenario that is often unrepresentative of real life. Our new reverse SR methodology generates a heterogeneous population database that covers a wide range of clinical scenarios.
OBJECTIVE
To compare perioperative surgical results and complications for open retropubic RP (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) in a reverse SR.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Eight databases were searched for SRs on RRP, LRP, or RARP between 2000 and 2020 (80 SRs). All references used in these SRs were captured for analysis (1724 articles). Perioperative outcomes and complications were compared among the RRP, LRP, and RARP approaches.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We identified 559 (32.4%) reports on RRP, 413 (23.9%) on LRP, and 752 (43.7%) on RARP, involving 1 353 485 patients overall. RARP showed a significantly higher annual volume of surgery per surgeon (AVSS) in comparison to RRP and LRP (mean 64.29, 43.26, and 41.47, respectively), a higher percentage of low-risk patients (prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, Gleason <7, stage
CONCLUSIONS
Our reverse SR involved a wide real-life representative sample and reference values established in the literature and revealed that minimally invasive surgery had the best perioperative and complication results, especially RARP, which was associated with less complex cases, higher annual surgeon volume, and greater performance.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We used a wide sample representative of real-life surgical practice and reference values established in the literature for three techniques for removal of the prostate to guide patients and physicians in deciding the best surgical treatment for prostate cancer according to availability.
PubMed: 36110904
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.015 -
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 -
Investigative and Clinical Urology Nov 2021To review safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) compared to open simple prostatectomy (OP). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To review safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) compared to open simple prostatectomy (OP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was performed to assess the differences in perioperative course and functional outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and surgical indication. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Method and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Perioperative course and functional outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD), 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two-tailed and the significance was set at p<0.05.
RESULTS
Eight studies were accepted. Meta-analysis showed significantly longer surgical time (MD, 43.72; 95% CI, 30.57-56.88; p<0.00001) with a significantly lower estimated blood loss (MD, -563.20; 95% CI, -739.95 to -386.46; p<0.00001) and shorter postoperative stay (MD, -2.85; 95% CI, -3.72 to -1.99; p<0.00001) in RASP. Catheterization time did not differ (MD, 0.65; 95% CI, -2.17 to 3.48; p=0.65). The risk of blood transfusion was significantly higher in OP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17-0.33; p<0.00001). The risk of recatheterization (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.32-11.93; p=0.47), postoperative urinary infections (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.23-3.51; p=0.87) and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.51; p=0.86) did not differ. At 3-month follow-up, functional outcomes were similar.
CONCLUSIONS
RASP demonstrated a better perioperative outcome and equal early functional outcomes as compared to OP. These findings should be balanced against the longer operative time and higher cost of robotic surgery.
Topics: Comparative Effectiveness Research; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Male; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Recovery of Function; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34729963
DOI: 10.4111/icu.20210297 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2020Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include... (Review)
Review
Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include Holmium Laser Enucleation Prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser VapoEnucleation Prostate (ThuVEP), and Laparoscopic (LSP) or Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP). Implementing new laser technologies is costly, and the steep learning curve of these laser techniques limit their wide range use. This promoted the use of LSP and RASP in centers with readily established laparoscopy or robotic surgery programs. The aim of this study is to review case and comparative series of RASP. We systematically reviewed published data from 2008 to 2020 on RASP and have identified 26 non-comparative and 9 comparative case series. RASP has longer operation time but less time spent in hospital and less blood loss. The outcomes of improvements in symptom score, post-voiding residual urine (PVR), postoperative PSA decline, complications, and cost are similar when compared to open and laser enucleation techniques. These outcomes position RASP as a viable MIS treatment option for patients with male LUTS needing surgical treatment for enlarged prostates. Nevertheless, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multicenter and large sample size are needed to confirm the findings of this systematic review.
PubMed: 32527020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9061798 -
Robotic Surgery (Auckland) 2019Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.
RESULTS
We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).
CONCLUSION
Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.
PubMed: 31921934
DOI: 10.2147/RSRR.S186768