3 350

Cited 15 times in

Meta-analysis of Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

Authors
 Joo Yong Lee  ;  Richilda Red Diaz  ;  Kang Su Cho  ;  Young Deuk Choi 
Citation
 JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, Vol.23(11) : 919-925, 2013 
Journal Title
 JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES 
ISSN
 1092-6429 
Issue Date
2013
MeSH
Humans ; Male ; Peritoneum/surgery* ; Prostatectomy* ; Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery* ; Robotics*
Keywords
Humans ; Male ; Peritoneum/surgery* ; Prostatectomy* ; Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery* ; Robotics*
Abstract
Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis of studies that compared transperitoneal (TP) and extraperitoneal (EP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Materials and Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE online databases were searched for studies released prior to June 2012. References were manually reviewed, and two researchers independently extracted the data. To assess the quality of the studies, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Methodology Checklist for case-control and cohort studies was applied. Results: One randomized controlled trial and five case-control studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Within these studies, 530 patients underwent EP-RARP, and 312 patients underwent TP-RARP. Operating room (OR) time for EP was shorter than for TP (mean difference, −25.551; 95% confidence interval [CI] −41.668 to −9.434; P=.002). For estimated blood loss, there was no significant difference between EP and TP (mean difference, −12.111; 95% CI −44.087 to 19.865; P=.458). There was a statistical difference in length of stay (LOS) between EP and TP patients (mean difference, −0.488; 95% CI −0.964 to −0.012; P=.044). There was no significant difference in margin positivity between EP and TP (odds ratio=1.023; 95% CI 0.656–1.573; P=.918). In complications including grade 2 or more than 2, there was also no difference between EP and TP (odds ratio=0.610; 95% CI 0.341–1.089; P=.094). Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that perioperative parameters, including OR time and LOS, may be more favorable for EP-RARP than for TP-RARP. However, the oncologic outcome of margin positivity did not demonstrate a significant difference between the EP and TP approaches.
Full Text
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/lap.2013.0265
DOI
10.1089/lap.2013.0265
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Urology (비뇨의학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Diaz, Richilda Red(리칠다)
Lee, Joo Yong(이주용) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3470-1767
Cho, Kang Su(조강수) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3500-8833
Choi, Young Deuk(최영득) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-5797
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/88533
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

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

Browse

Links