Skip to main content
main-content

23.01.2018 | Review | Ausgabe 4/2018

World Journal of Urology 4/2018

Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

Zeitschrift:
World Journal of Urology > Ausgabe 4/2018
Autoren:
Abbas Basiri, Jean JMCH de la Rosette, Shahin Tabatabaei, Henry H. Woo, M. Pilar Laguna, Hamidreza Shemshaki
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00345-018-2174-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Abstract

Purpose

This study is a systematic analysis of the evidence regarding oncological, perioperative and postoperative outcomes and the cost of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).

Methods

Summary data was abstracted from 104 original research articles representing 227,400 patients. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were reviewed in December 2016. A total of 104 publications were selected for inclusion. The primary outcomes were positive surgical margin (PSM) and major complication rate according to Clavien classifications. Secondary outcomes were operative time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusions, conversions, rate of post-operative erectile dysfunction and incontinence and total cost of procedure.

Results

ORP had a significantly higher rate than RALP for PSM (OR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.05–1.32; p = 0.004), but the rate of PSM was not significantly different between ORP versus LRP (OR: 1.37; 95% CI 0.88–2.14; p = 0.17) and RALP versus LRP (OR: 0.83; 95% CI 0.40–1.72; p = 0.62). The major Clavien complication rate was significantly different between ORP and RALP (OR: 2.14; 95% CI 1.24–3.68; p = 0.006). Estimated blood loss, transfusions and length of hospital stay were low for RALP, moderate for LRP and high for ORP. The rate of erectile dysfunction (OR: 2.58; 95% CI 1.77–3.75; p < 0.001) and incontinence (OR: 3.57; 95% CI 2.28–5.58; p < 0.001) were significantly lower after RALP than LRP and equivalent for other comparisons. Total cost was highest for RALP, followed by LRP and ORP.

Conclusions

For PSM and peri- and post-operative complications, RALP showed better results than ORP and LRP. In the context of the biases between the studies, one should interpret the results with caution.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

★ PREMIUM-INHALT
e.Med Interdisziplinär

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag als Mediziner

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Zusatzmaterial
Nur für berechtigte Nutzer zugänglich
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

World Journal of Urology 4/2018 Zur Ausgabe
  1. Sie können e.Med Gynäkologie & Urologie 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Urologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise