TABLE 12Anastomotic leak

StudyRobotic, n/N (%)Laparoscopic, n/N (%)Open, n/N (%)
Brown 20041259/60 (15.0)2/60 (3.3)
Carlsson 201010413/1253 (1.0)8/485 (1.6)
Dahl 20091262/104 (1.9)0/102
aDrouin 20091010/712/85 (2.4)1/83 (1.2)
aGhavamian 20061282/70 (2.9)3/70 (4.3)
aGuazzoni 2006908/60 (13.3)20/60 (33.3)
Joseph 20079412/754 (1.6)112/800 (14.0)
Martorana 20041341/50 (2.0)2/50 (4.0)
Nadler 20101122/50 (4.0)2/50 (4.0)
Ou 20091130/302/30 (6.7)
Remzi 20051398/80 (10.0)6/41 (14.6)
Rozet 2007961/133 (0.8)1/133 (0.8)
Salomon 20021404/155 (2.6)2/151 (1.3)
Sundaram 2004970/101/10 (10.0)
Predicted probability of event0.0100.0440.033
OR (95% CrI); probability outcome favours robotic prostatectomyAll studies0.21 (0.05 to 0.76); 0.990
Low-risk studies onlyNot estimable
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.