Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Investig Clin Urol. 2017 05; 58(3):152-163.IC

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

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

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

28480340

Citation

Lee, Seon Heui, et al. "Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Has Lower Biochemical Recurrence Than Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Investigative and Clinical Urology, vol. 58, no. 3, 2017, pp. 152-163.
Lee SH, Seo HJ, Lee NR, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58(3):152-163.
Lee, S. H., Seo, H. J., Lee, N. R., Son, S. K., Kim, D. K., & Rha, K. H. (2017). Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Investigative and Clinical Urology, 58(3), 152-163. https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.2017.58.3.152
Lee SH, et al. Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Has Lower Biochemical Recurrence Than Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58(3):152-163. PubMed PMID: 28480340.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. AU - Lee,Seon Heui, AU - Seo,Hyun Ju, AU - Lee,Na Rae, AU - Son,Soo Kyung, AU - Kim,Dae Keun, AU - Rha,Koon Ho, Y1 - 2017/04/28/ PY - 2017/02/28/received PY - 2017/03/22/accepted PY - 2017/5/9/entrez PY - 2017/5/10/pubmed PY - 2018/3/8/medline KW - Laparoscopy KW - Meta-analysis KW - Prostatectomy KW - Prostatic neoplasms KW - Robotics SP - 152 EP - 163 JF - Investigative and clinical urology JO - Investig Clin Urol VL - 58 IS - 3 N2 - 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. SN - 2466-054X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/28480340/Robot_assisted_radical_prostatectomy_has_lower_biochemical_recurrence_than_laparoscopic_radical_prostatectomy:_Systematic_review_and_meta_analysis_ L2 - https://www.icurology.org/DOIx.php?id=10.4111/icu.2017.58.3.152 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -