TABLE 11Bladder neck contracture

StudyRobotic, n/N (%)Laparoscopic, n/N (%)Open, n/N (%)
Bhayani 20031240/336/24 (25.0)
Brown 20041250/602/60 (3.3)
Carlsson 20101043/1253 (0.2)22/485 (4.5)
Dahl 20091262/104 (2.0)0/102
Ficarra 20091063/103 (3.0)6/105 (5.7)
Ghavamian 20061281/70 (1.4)3/70 (4.3)
Hu 2006922/322 (0.6)8/358 (2.2)
Krambeck 20091083/248 (1.2)23/492 (4.7)
Lama 20091335/56 (8.9)1/59 (1.7)
Nadler 20101122/50 (4.0)7/50 (14.0)
Ou 20091131/30 (3.3)0/30
Remzi 20051393/80 (3.8)4/41 (9.8)
Wagner 20071462/75 (2.7)12/75 (16.0)
Predicted probability of event0.0100.0210.049
OR (95% CrI); probability outcome favours robotic prostatectomyAll studies0.48 (0.09 to 2.93); 0.805
Low-risk studies onlyNot estimable

From: 4, Clinical effectiveness of robotic compared with laparoscopic techniques

Cover of Systematic Review and Economic Modelling of the Relative Clinical Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Surgery and Robotic Surgery for Removal of the Prostate in Men with Localised Prostate Cancer
Systematic Review and Economic Modelling of the Relative Clinical Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Surgery and Robotic Surgery for Removal of the Prostate in Men with Localised Prostate Cancer.
Health Technology Assessment, No. 16.41.
Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al.
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2012 Nov.
© 2012, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.