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.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.