Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Sep;57(5):1165-77.
doi: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165.

Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hyun Ju Seo  1   2 , Na Rae Lee  2   3 , Soo Kyung Son  2   3 , Dae Keun Kim  4 , Koon Ho Rha  5 , Seon Heui Lee  6
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hyun Ju Seo et al. Yonsei Med J. 2016 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer.

Materials and methods: Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies.

Results: A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up.

Conclusion: RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.

Keywords: Prostatic neoplasms; meta-analysis; prostatectomy; robotics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Study selection flow-diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. The summary of risk of bias
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Functional outcomes: RARP vs. RRP. (A) Incontinence rate at 12 months after surgery. (B) Potency rate at 12 months after surgery. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval
Fig. 4
Fig. 4. Positive margin rate: RARP vs. RRP. (A) Positive margin rate. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval. (B) Positive margin rate of studies assessed as low risk studies. (C) Positive margin rate for pT2 tumors in studies published after 2010. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval
Fig. 5
Fig. 5. Biochemical recurrence: RARP vs. RRP. (A) Biochemical recurrence according to definition of PSA failure. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval. (B) Biochemical recurrence according to follow-up duration. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Yates DR, Vaessen C, Roupret M. From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robot-assisted surgery in urology. BJU Int. 2011;108:1708–1713. - PubMed
    1. Rha KH. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol. 2009;50:97–104. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol. 2011;59:61–71. - PubMed
    1. Hakimi AA, Feder M, Ghavamian R. Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature. Urol J. 2007;4:130–137. - PubMed
    1. Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF, Stoffs TL, Dahm P. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol. 2010;57:930–937. - PubMed