TABLE 15Ileus

StudyRobotic, n/N (%)Laparoscopic, n/N (%)Open, n/N (%)
Artibani 20031231/71 (1.4)0/50
Brown 20041252/60 (3.3)3/60 (5.0)
Ficarra 20091061/103 (1.0)1/105 (1.0)
Ghavamian 20061282/70 (2.9)1/70 (1.4)
Hu 2006929/322 (2.8)19/358 (5.3)
Krambeck 20091085/286 (1.7)10/564 (1.8)
Martorana 20041341/50 (2.0)0/50
Menon 2002951/40 (2.5)1/40 (2.5)
Nadler 20101122/50 (4.0)0/50
Remzi 20051391/80 (1.3)0/41
Salomon 20021404/155 (2.6)0/151
Tewari 20031163/200 (1.5)3/100 (3.0)
Predicted probability of event0.0110.0240.009
OR (95% CrI); probability outcome favours robotic prostatectomyAll studies0.46 (0.12 to 1.51); 0.920
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.