Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=27852051
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Robotic vs Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic
review and an meta-analysis update
#MMPMID27852051
Tang K
; Jiang K
; Chen H
; Chen Z
; Xu H
; Ye Z
Oncotarget
2017[May]; 8
(19
): 32237-32257
PMID27852051
show ga
CONTEXT: The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
(RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently,
a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted. OBJECTIVE:
To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared
with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer.
METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library
was performed to identify studies that compared RARP with RRP. Outcomes of
interest included perioperative, pathologic variables and complications. RESULTS:
78 studies assessing RARP vs. RRP were included for meta-analysis. Although
patients underwent RRP have shorter operative time than RARP (WMD: 39.85 minutes;
P < 0.001), patients underwent RARP have less intraoperative blood loss (WMD =
-507.67ml; P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR = 0.13; P < 0.001),
shorter time to remove catheter (WMD = -3.04day; P < 0.001), shorter hospital
stay (WMD = -1.62day; P < 0.001), lower PSM rates (OR:0.88; P = 0.04), fewer
positive lymph nodes (OR:0.45;P < 0.001), fewer overall complications (OR:0.43; P
< 0.001), higher 3- and 12-mo potent recovery rate (OR:3.19;P = 0.02; OR:2.37; P
= 0.005, respectively), and lower readmission rate (OR:0.70, P = 0.03). The
biochemical recurrence free survival of RARP is better than RRP (OR:1.33, P =
0.04). All the other calculated results are similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that RARP appears to be safe and effective to
its counterpart RRP in selected patients.
free
free
free
