151 197

Cited 10 times in

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author나군호-
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-20T07:41:33Z-
dc.date.available2018-07-20T07:41:33Z-
dc.date.issued2017-
dc.identifier.issn2466-0493-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/160427-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: 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.-
dc.description.statementOfResponsibilityopen-
dc.languageEnglish-
dc.publisherKorean Urological Association-
dc.relation.isPartOfINVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY-
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND 2.0 KR-
dc.rightshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/kr/-
dc.subject.MESHHumans-
dc.subject.MESHLaparoscopy*/methods-
dc.subject.MESHMale-
dc.subject.MESHNeoplasm Recurrence, Local/epidemiology-
dc.subject.MESHNeoplasm Recurrence, Local/surgery*-
dc.subject.MESHProstate/surgery-
dc.subject.MESHProstatectomy/adverse effects-
dc.subject.MESHProstatectomy/methods*-
dc.subject.MESHProstatic Neoplasms/surgery*-
dc.subject.MESHRobotic Surgical Procedures*/methods-
dc.subject.MESHUrinary Incontinence/etiology-
dc.titleRobot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.collegeCollege of Medicine-
dc.contributor.departmentDept. of Urology-
dc.contributor.googleauthorSeon Heui Lee,1 Hyun Ju Seo,2 Na Rae Lee,3 Soo Kyung Son,3 Dae Keun Kim,4,5 and Koon Ho Rhacorresponding author6-
dc.identifier.doi10.4111/icu.2017.58.3.152-
dc.contributor.localIdA01227-
dc.relation.journalcodeJ01185-
dc.identifier.eissn2466-054X-
dc.identifier.pmid28480340-
dc.subject.keywordLaparoscopy-
dc.subject.keywordMeta-analysis-
dc.subject.keywordProstatectomy-
dc.subject.keywordProstatic neoplasms-
dc.subject.keywordRobotics-
dc.contributor.alternativeNameRha, Koon Ho-
dc.contributor.affiliatedAuthorRha, Koon Ho-
dc.citation.volume58-
dc.citation.number3-
dc.citation.startPage152-
dc.citation.endPage163-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationINVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY, Vol.58(3) : 152-163, 2017-
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers

qrcode

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