Purpose: To review safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) compared to open simple prostatectomy (OP). Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to assess the differences in perioperative course and functional outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and surgical indication. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel Method and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Perioperative course and functional outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD), 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two-tailed and the significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Eight studies were accepted. Meta-analysis showed significantly longer surgical time (MD, 43.72; 95% CI, 30.57–56.88; p<0.00001) with a significantly lower estimated blood loss (MD,-563.20; 95% CI,-739.95 to-386.46; p<0.00001) and shorter postoperative stay (MD,-2.85; 95% CI,-3.72 to-1.99; p<0.00001) in RASP. Catheterization time did not differ (MD, 0.65; 95% CI,-2.17 to 3.48; p=0.65). The risk of blood transfusion was significantly higher in OP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17–0.33; p<0.00001). The risk of re-catheterization (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.32–11.93; p=0.47), postoperative urinary infections (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.23–3.51; p=0.87) and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.51; p=0.86) did not differ. At 3-month follow-up, functional outcomes were simi-lar. Conclusions: RASP demonstrated a better perioperative outcome and equal early functional outcomes as compared to OP. These findings should be balanced against the longer operative time and higher cost of robotic surgery.

Scarcella S., Castellani D., Gauhar V., Teoh J.Y.-C., Giulioni C., Piazza P., et al. (2021). Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY, 62(6), 631-640 [10.4111/icu.20210297].

Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Piazza P.;
2021

Abstract

Purpose: To review safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) compared to open simple prostatectomy (OP). Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to assess the differences in perioperative course and functional outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and surgical indication. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel Method and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Perioperative course and functional outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD), 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two-tailed and the significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Eight studies were accepted. Meta-analysis showed significantly longer surgical time (MD, 43.72; 95% CI, 30.57–56.88; p<0.00001) with a significantly lower estimated blood loss (MD,-563.20; 95% CI,-739.95 to-386.46; p<0.00001) and shorter postoperative stay (MD,-2.85; 95% CI,-3.72 to-1.99; p<0.00001) in RASP. Catheterization time did not differ (MD, 0.65; 95% CI,-2.17 to 3.48; p=0.65). The risk of blood transfusion was significantly higher in OP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17–0.33; p<0.00001). The risk of re-catheterization (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.32–11.93; p=0.47), postoperative urinary infections (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.23–3.51; p=0.87) and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.51; p=0.86) did not differ. At 3-month follow-up, functional outcomes were simi-lar. Conclusions: RASP demonstrated a better perioperative outcome and equal early functional outcomes as compared to OP. These findings should be balanced against the longer operative time and higher cost of robotic surgery.
2021
Scarcella S., Castellani D., Gauhar V., Teoh J.Y.-C., Giulioni C., Piazza P., et al. (2021). Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY, 62(6), 631-640 [10.4111/icu.20210297].
Scarcella S.; Castellani D.; Gauhar V.; Teoh J.Y.-C.; Giulioni C.; Piazza P.; Bravi C.A.; De Groote R.; De Naeyer G.; Puliatti S.; Galosi A.B.; Mottri...espandi
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Scarcella_2021.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale (CCBYNC)
Dimensione 381.65 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
381.65 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
icu-62-631-s001.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. (B) Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale (CCBYNC)
Dimensione 32.84 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
32.84 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/973290
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 18
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact