Surgical and functional outcomes of Retzius‐sparing robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy versus conventional robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy‐confirmed prostate cancer. Are outcomes worth it? Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Author:

O'Connor‐Cordova Mario A.1ORCID,Macías Alan Gabriel Ortega1ORCID,Sancen‐Herrera Juan Pablo1ORCID,Altamirano‐Lamarque Francisco1ORCID,Vargas del Toro Alexis1ORCID,Peddinani Bharat Kumar1ORCID,Canal‐Zarate Pia2ORCID,O'Connor‐Juarez Mario A.3

Affiliation:

1. Departamento de Ciencias Clínicas Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud del Tecnologico de Monterrey Monterrey Mexico

2. Departamento de Ciencias Clínicas Facultad de Medicina Universidad Anáhuac Mexico City Mexico

3. Departamento de Urología Hospital Ángeles del Carmen Guadalajara Mexico

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundRadical prostatectomy is the standard of care for prostate cancer. Retzius‐sparing robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RS‐RARP) is being widely adopted due to positive functional outcomes compared to conventional robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (c‐RARP). Concerns regarding potency, oncological outcomes, and learning curve are still a matter of debate.MethodsFollowing Preferred Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42023398724, a systematic review was performed in February 2023 on RS‐RARP compared to conventional c‐RARP. Outcomes of interest were continence recovery, potency, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence (BCR), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), operation time and complications. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2.ResultsA total of 17 studies were included, totaling 2751 patients, out of which 1221 underwent RS‐RARP and 1530 underwent c‐RARP. Continence was analyzed using two definitions: zero pad and one safety pad. Cumulative analysis showed with both definitions statistical difference in terms of continence recovery at 1 month (0 pad odds ratio [OR] = 4.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.32–15.77]; Safety pad OR = 13.19; 95% CI = [8.92–19.49]), as well as at 3 months (0 pad OR, 2.93; 95% CI = [1.57–5.46]; Safety pad OR = 5.31; 95% CI = [1.33–21.13]). Continence recovery at 12 months was higher in the one safety pad group after RS‐RARP (OR = 4.37; 95% CI = [1.97–9.73]). The meta‐analysis revealed that overall PSM rates without pathologic stage classification were not different following RS‐RARP (OR = 1.13; 95% CI = [0.96–1.33]. Analysis according to the tumor stage revealed PSM rates in pT2 and pT3 tumors are not different following RS‐RARP compared to c‐RARP (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = [0.84–2.55]) and (OR = 1.41; 95% CI = [0.93–2.13]), respectively. No difference in potency at 12 months (OR = 0.98; 95% CI = [0.69–1.41], BCR at 12 months (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = [0.46–2.16]), EBL (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.01; 95% CI = [−0.31 to 0.29]), LOS (SMD = −0.01; 95% CI = [−0.48 to 0.45]), operation time (SMD = ‐0.14; 95% CI = [−0.41 to 0.12]) or complications (OR = 0.9; 95% CI = [0.62–1.29]) were observed.ConclusionsOur analysis suggests that RS‐RARP is safe and feasible. Faster continence recovery rate is seen after RS‐RARP. Potency outcomes appear to be similar. PSM rates are not different following RS‐RARP regardless of pathologic stage. Further quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Urology,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3