TABLE 14Organ injury

StudyRobotic, n/N (%)Laparoscopic, n/N (%)Open, n/N (%)
Artibani 20031234/71 (5.6)0/50
Bhayani 20031241/33 (3.0)0/24
Brown 20041252/60 (3.3)0/60
Carlsson 20101046/1253 (0.5)10/485 (2.0)
Doumerc 20101051/212 (0.5)0/502
aDrouin 20091010/711/85 (1.2)1/83 (1.2)
Ficarra 20091062/103 (2.0)0/105
Fornara 20041271/32 (3.1)0/32
aGhavamian 20061282/70 (2.9)0/70
aGreco 20101292/150 (1.3)1/150 (0.7)
Hu 2006933/322 (0.9)23/358 (6.4)
Lama 20091330/561/59 (1.7)
Martorana 20041342/50 (4.0)0/50
Ou 20091132/30 (6.7)1/30 (3.3)
Remzi 20051391/80 (1.3)1/41 (2.4)
Salomon 20021404/155 (2.6)3/151 (2.0)
Tewari 20031160/2001/100 (1.0)
Predicted probability of event0.0040.0290.008
OR (95% CrI); probability outcome favours robotic prostatectomyAll studies0.16 (0.03 to 0.76); 0.987
Low-risk studies only0.00 (0.00 to 0.20); 0.992
a

Study included in the low risk of bias meta-analysis.

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.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.