87 394

Cited 4 times in

Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis

 Doo Yong Chung  ;  Hae Do Jung  ;  Do Kyung Kim  ;  Min Ho Lee  ;  Sin Woo Lee  ;  Sunghyun Paick  ;  Joo Yong Lee  ;  Seung Hyun Jeon 
 PLOS ONE, Vol.17(5) : e0268182, 2022-05 
Journal Title
Issue Date
Humans ; Male ; Prostate / surgery ; Prostatectomy / adverse effects ; Prostatectomy / methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms* / etiology ; Prostatic Neoplasms* / surgery ; Robotic Surgical Procedures* / adverse effects ; Robotic Surgical Procedures* / methods ; Robotics* ; Treatment Outcome
Background: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) is widely used to surgically treat of localized prostate cancer. Among RARP, retzius-sparing techniques(RS-RARP) are implemented through douglas pouch, not the existing conventional approach(C-RARP). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including recent published papers.

Materials & methods: Systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2021. We conducted meta-analysis as follows; Participants, patients with biopsy-proven PCa; Interventions, Patients underwent C-RARP or RS-RALP; Outcomes, comparison of continence recovery rate, positive surgical margins(PSM), complication, operation time and estimated blood loss(EBL) included for analysis.

Results: Thirteen studies with a total of 2917 patients were included for meta-analysis. Among them, three were randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies and the rest were non-RCT studies. Incontinence was analyzed with zero pad and safety pad, respectively. There showed a statistically significant advantage for RS-RARP in terms of continence recovery at 1 month(0 pad; OR 0.28, (0.16-0.47), safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.07-0.22), p<0.001), as well as at 3 months(0 pad; OR 0.31 (0.18-0.53), safety-pad; OR 0.23 (0.14-0.40) p<0.001), 6 months(0 pad; OR 0.29 (0.17-0.51), safety-pad; OR 0.13 (0.06-0.27), p<0.001). And after 12 months, RS-RARP showed better results only in the safety-pad(0 pad; OR 0.64 (0.35-1.18), p = 0.15, safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.04-0.36), p<0.001). In PSM, there was no statistical difference between two group at overall stage, but RS-RARP was observed to be higher than C-RARP in pT3 subgroup analysis(OR 0.74 (0.55-0.99), p = 0.047) (Fig 1). Whereas, there was no significant difference between the two groups in complication, operation time, and EBL.

Conclusions: Our analysis showed that RS-RARP is superior about early continence recovery than C-RARP. However, RS-RARP showed relatively high PSM in locally advanced PCa of pT3 or above. Therefore, although RS-RARP has few advantages about functional outcomes, we think that caution should be exercised when approaching patients with high-risk local diseases.
Files in This Item:
T202201931.pdf Download
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Lee, Joo Yong(이주용) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3470-1767
사서에게 알리기


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