117 115

Cited 25 times in

Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors
 Hyun-Ju Seo  ;  Na Rae Lee  ;  Soo Kyung Son  ;  Dae Keun Kim  ;  Koon Ho Rha  ;  Seon Heui Lee 
Citation
 YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, Vol.57(5) : 1165-1177, 2016 
Journal Title
 YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL 
ISSN
 0513-5796 
Issue Date
2016
MeSH
Humans ; Male ; Postoperative Complications/etiology* ; Prostatectomy/adverse effects* ; Prostatectomy/methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Treatment Outcome ; Urinary Incontinence/etiology
Keywords
Prostatic neoplasms ; meta-analysis ; prostatectomy ; robotics
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies. RESULTS: A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up. CONCLUSION: RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.
Files in This Item:
T201603584.pdf Download
DOI
10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Dae Keun(김대근)
Rha, Koon Ho(나군호) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8588-7584
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/152061
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse