Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Investig Clin Urol. 2017 May;58(3):152-163. doi: 10.4111/icu.2017.58.3.152. Epub 2017 Apr 28.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Author information

1
Department of Nursing Science, Gachon University College of Nursing, Incheon, Korea.
2
Department of Nursing, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea.
3
Department of Health Technology Assessment, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea.
4
Department of Urology, CHA Seoul Station Medical Center, CHA University, CHA Medical School, Seoul, Korea.
5
Department of Urology, Hanyang University School of Medicine, Graduate School, Seoul, Korea.
6
Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To assess the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Existing systematic reviews were updated to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RARP. Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, Kmbase, and others, were searched through July 2014. The quality of the selected systematic reviews was assessed by using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-Amstar) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.2 (Cochrane Community) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0 (CMA; Biostat). Cochrane Q and I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS:

Two systematic reviews and 16 additional studies were selected from a search performed of existing systematic reviews. These included 2 randomized controlled clinical trials and 28 nonrandomized comparative studies. The risk of complications, such as injury to organs by the Clavien-Dindo classification, was lower with RARP than with LRP (relative risk [RR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23-0.85; p=0.01). The risk of urinary incontinence was lower (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.60; p<0.000001) and the potency rate was significantly higher with RARP than with LRP (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70; I2=78%; p=0.003). Regarding positive surgical margins, no significant difference in risk between the 2 groups was observed; however, the biochemical recurrence rate was lower after RARP than after LRP (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; I2=21%; p<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS:

RARP appears to be a safe and effective technique compared with LRP with a lower complication rate, better potency, a higher continence rate, and a decreased rate of biochemical recurrence.

KEYWORDS:

Laparoscopy; Meta-analysis; Prostatectomy; Prostatic neoplasms; Robotics

PMID:
28480340
PMCID:
PMC5419109
DOI:
10.4111/icu.2017.58.3.152
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Korean Urological Association Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center