Anzeige
Erschienen in:
14.05.2019 | Invited Review
Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 5/2020
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhaltenAbstract
Context
Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy appears to have better continence rates when compared to conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy, however, concern with high positive surgical margin rates exist.
Objective
To systematically evaluate evidence comparing functional and oncological outcomes of retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy and conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.
Evidence acquisition
The systematic review was performed in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Bibliographic databases searched were PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials—CENTRAL (in The Cochrane library—issue 1, 2018). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.
Evidence synthesis
The search retrieved 137 references through electronic searches of various databases. Six were included in the review. RS-RALP was associated with better early continence rates (≤ 1 month) (moderate quality evidence) (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.27, 2.32, p 0.0005) and at 3 months (low quality evidence) (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03, 1.88, p 0.03). Time to continence recovery, number of pads used and pad weight are better with RS-RALP. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter 6 and 12 months continence rates. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter T2 positive margin rates (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.91, 3.06, p 0.10) and T3 positive margin rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68, 1.70, p = 0.75). Short-term biochemical free survival appears to be similar between the two approaches. Based on low-quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter overall and major complication rates.
Conclusions
RS-RARP appears to have earlier continence recovery when compared to Con-RARP which does not come at a significant oncologic cost. Whilst there was a trend towards higher PSM rates with RS-RALP, this did not achieve statistical significance. Furthermore this trend appeared to be less pronounced with T3 disease, where the PSM rates are almost similar.