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
. 2022 May 26;17(5):e0268182.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268182. eCollection 2022.

Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis

Doo Yong Chung  1 , Hae Do Jung  2 , Do Kyung Kim  3 , Min Ho Lee  4 , Sin Woo Lee  5 , Sunghyun Paick  6 , Joo Yong Lee  7   8 , Seung Hyun Jeon  9
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis

Doo Yong Chung et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy(RARP) is widely used to surgically treat of localized prostate cancer. Among RARP, retzius-sparing techniques(RS-RARP) are implemented through douglas pouch, not the existing conventional approach(C-RARP). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including recent published papers.

Materials & methods: Systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guideline. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2021. We conducted meta-analysis as follows; Participants, patients with biopsy-proven PCa; Interventions, Patients underwent C-RARP or RS-RALP; Outcomes, comparison of continence recovery rate, positive surgical margins(PSM), complication, operation time and estimated blood loss(EBL) included for analysis.

Results: Thirteen studies with a total of 2917 patients were included for meta-analysis. Among them, three were randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies and the rest were non-RCT studies. Incontinence was analyzed with zero pad and safety pad, respectively. There showed a statistically significant advantage for RS-RARP in terms of continence recovery at 1 month(0 pad; OR 0.28, (0.16-0.47), safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.07-0.22), p<0.001), as well as at 3 months(0 pad; OR 0.31 (0.18-0.53), safety-pad; OR 0.23 (0.14-0.40) p<0.001), 6 months(0 pad; OR 0.29 (0.17-0.51), safety-pad; OR 0.13 (0.06-0.27), p<0.001). And after 12 months, RS-RARP showed better results only in the safety-pad(0 pad; OR 0.64 (0.35-1.18), p = 0.15, safety-pad; OR 0.12 (0.04-0.36), p<0.001). In PSM, there was no statistical difference between two group at overall stage, but RS-RARP was observed to be higher than C-RARP in pT3 subgroup analysis(OR 0.74 (0.55-0.99), p = 0.047) (Fig 1). Whereas, there was no significant difference between the two groups in complication, operation time, and EBL.

Conclusions: Our analysis showed that RS-RARP is superior about early continence recovery than C-RARP. However, RS-RARP showed relatively high PSM in locally advanced PCa of pT3 or above. Therefore, although RS-RARP has few advantages about functional outcomes, we think that caution should be exercised when approaching patients with high-risk local diseases.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Study selection flowchart according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Forest plots of recovery of continence after surgery_zero pad definition.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Forest plots of recovery of continence after surgery_safety pad definition.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Forest plots of postive surgical margin (overall stage and stratified based on pathological stage).
Fig 5
Fig 5. Forest plots of estimated blood loss and operation time.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Forest plots of complications.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7–30. Epub 2020/01/09. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87(4):408–10. Epub 2001/03/17. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.x . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Forsmark A, Gehrman J, Angenete E, Bjartell A, Bjorholt I, Carlsson S, et al.. Health Economic Analysis of Open and Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Prostate Cancer Within the Prospective Multicentre LAPPRO Trial. European Urology. 2018;74(6):816–24. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.038 WOS:000450121100030. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, et al.. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057–66. Epub 2016/07/31. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y, Soukup JR, Lipsitz SR, Prasad SM, et al.. Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):972–80. Epub 2009/09/29. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.09.017 . - DOI - PubMed