Purpose: To review safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) compared to open simple prostatectomy (OP). Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to assess the differences in perioperative course and functional outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and surgical indication. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel Method and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Perioperative course and functional outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD), 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two-tailed and the significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Eight studies were accepted. Meta-analysis showed significantly longer surgical time (MD, 43.72; 95% CI, 30.57–56.88; p<0.00001) with a significantly lower estimated blood loss (MD,-563.20; 95% CI,-739.95 to-386.46; p<0.00001) and shorter postoperative stay (MD,-2.85; 95% CI,-3.72 to-1.99; p<0.00001) in RASP. Catheterization time did not differ (MD, 0.65; 95% CI,-2.17 to 3.48; p=0.65). The risk of blood transfusion was significantly higher in OP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17–0.33; p<0.00001). The risk of re-catheterization (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.32–11.93; p=0.47), postoperative urinary infections (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.23–3.51; p=0.87) and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.51; p=0.86) did not differ. At 3-month follow-up, functional outcomes were simi-lar. Conclusions: RASP demonstrated a better perioperative outcome and equal early functional outcomes as compared to OP. These findings should be balanced against the longer operative time and higher cost of robotic surgery.

Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies / Scarcella, S.; Castellani, D.; Gauhar, V.; Teoh, J. Y. -C.; Giulioni, C.; Piazza, P.; Bravi, C. A.; De Groote, R.; De Naeyer, G.; Puliatti, S.; Galosi, A. B.; Mottrie, A.. - In: INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY. - ISSN 2466-0493. - 62:6(2021), pp. 631-640. [10.4111/icu.20210297]

Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Puliatti S.;
2021

Abstract

Purpose: To review safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) compared to open simple prostatectomy (OP). Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to assess the differences in perioperative course and functional outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and surgical indication. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel Method and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Perioperative course and functional outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD), 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two-tailed and the significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Eight studies were accepted. Meta-analysis showed significantly longer surgical time (MD, 43.72; 95% CI, 30.57–56.88; p<0.00001) with a significantly lower estimated blood loss (MD,-563.20; 95% CI,-739.95 to-386.46; p<0.00001) and shorter postoperative stay (MD,-2.85; 95% CI,-3.72 to-1.99; p<0.00001) in RASP. Catheterization time did not differ (MD, 0.65; 95% CI,-2.17 to 3.48; p=0.65). The risk of blood transfusion was significantly higher in OP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17–0.33; p<0.00001). The risk of re-catheterization (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.32–11.93; p=0.47), postoperative urinary infections (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.23–3.51; p=0.87) and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.51; p=0.86) did not differ. At 3-month follow-up, functional outcomes were simi-lar. Conclusions: RASP demonstrated a better perioperative outcome and equal early functional outcomes as compared to OP. These findings should be balanced against the longer operative time and higher cost of robotic surgery.
2021
62
6
631
640
Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies / Scarcella, S.; Castellani, D.; Gauhar, V.; Teoh, J. Y. -C.; Giulioni, C.; Piazza, P.; Bravi, C. A.; De Groote, R.; De Naeyer, G.; Puliatti, S.; Galosi, A. B.; Mottrie, A.. - In: INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY. - ISSN 2466-0493. - 62:6(2021), pp. 631-640. [10.4111/icu.20210297]
Scarcella, S.; Castellani, D.; Gauhar, V.; Teoh, J. Y. -C.; Giulioni, C.; Piazza, P.; Bravi, C. A.; De Groote, R.; De Naeyer, G.; Puliatti, S.; Galosi, A. B.; Mottrie, A.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2020ICU_icu-62-631.pdf

Open access

Tipologia: Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione 381.65 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
381.65 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1281329
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 15
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 14
social impact