Effect of different catheter pathways on wounds after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractProstate cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide and the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths in men. With the rapidly increasing surgical rate of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, there is still controversy about how to use a urinary catheter post‐operatively. Thus, we attempted to compare the post‐operative wound‐related outcomes through a meta‐analysis of urethral catheterisation (UC) versus suprapubic catheterisation (SPC) after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. As of August 2023, the authors conducted systematic searches in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The authors reviewed the relevant literature separately to determine comparisons between SPC and UC treatment after radical prostatectomy. A total of 395 subjects were enrolled in the five trials, met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta‐analysis. Data collection and analysis revealed significant differences in catheter bother to patients for surgical trauma (MD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.48, 1.48 p = 0.0001), with SPC causing less catheter bother to patients post‐operatively; post‐operative catheter‐related problems (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.03, 326.1 p = 0.61), the POD1 of the post‐operative period (MD, − 0.09; 95% CI, −0.75, 0.94 p = 0.83) and the POD3 of the post‐operative period (MD, −0.49; 95% CI, −0.99, 0.01 p = 0.06); there was no statistically significant difference in wound pain. Compared with UC, SPC patients had less post‐operative catheter distress. Thus, SPC is more beneficial in reducing post‐operative wound discomfort in patients. The validity of the results remains to be tested in more and better studies.