Comparison of retropubic radical prostatectomy and standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1000-6702.2015.08.014
- VernacularTitle:耻骨后根治性前列腺切除术与标准腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术疗效比较的荟萃分析
- Author:
Liping XIE
;
Xiao WANG
;
Xiangyi ZHENG
;
Ben LIU
;
Alin JI
;
Yasai YU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy;
Retropubic radical prostatectomy;
Meta-analysis;
Clinical research
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2015;36(8):615-619
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the outcomes of standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (SLRP) and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) via meta-analysis.Methods A systematic literature search of articles from January 1992 to April 2015 was conducted via Pubmed,Web of Science,Cochrane Library,and EMBASE databases,and the references of the retrieved articles.Fixed-or random-effect models were used to summarize the estimates to evaluate operation time,blood loss,transfusion,catheterization time,hospital stay,surgical margin status,perioperative complications,postoperative erectile dysfunction,and postoperative urinary incontinence in these two approaches.Results A total of 17 articles were included in this study.Compared with RRP group,the operation time was longer in SLRP group (SMD =1.20,95％ CI 0.83,1.58).On the contrary,the SLRP group held advantages in blood loss (SMD =-2.02,95％ CI -2.67,-1.37),transfusion (RR =0.22,95％ CI 0.16,0.30),catheterization time (SMD =-1.44,95 ％ CI-2.34,-0.54),hospital stay (SMD =-0.97,95 ％ CI-1.29,-0.66) (P ＜ 0.05).Moreover,these two approaches showed no difference in surgical margin status (RR =0.94,95 ％ CI 0.84,1.05),perioperative complications (RR =0.78,95％ CI 0.60,1.02),postoperative erectile dysfunction (RR =1.13,95 ％ CI 0.97,1.31),and postoperative urinary incontinence (RR =0.85,95 ％ CI 0.57,1.28) (P ＞0.05).Conclusions Compared with RRP,SLRP could be a more suitable approach to treat localized prostate cancer.Random clinical trials are needed in the future to better evaluate these two approaches.
