A comparative analysis of perioperative complications and biochemical recurrence between standard and extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Introduction: Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is commonly performed during radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer staging. This study aimed to comprehensively analyze existing evidence compare perioperative complications associated with standard (sPLND) versus extended PLND templates (ePLND) in RP patients.

Methods: A meta-analysis of prospective studies on PLND complications was conducted. Systematic searches were performed on Web of Science, Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until May 2023. Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using random-effects models in the meta-analysis. The statistical analysis of the data was carried out using Review Manager software.

Results: Nine studies, including three randomized clinical trial and six prospective studies, with a total of 4962 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis revealed that patients undergoing ePLND had a higher risk of partial perioperative complications, such as lymphedema ( I2 =28%; RR 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.27; P <0.001) and urinary retention ( I2 =0%; RR 0.30; 95% CI: 0.09-0.94; P =0.04) compared to those undergoing sPLND. However, there were no significant difference was observed in pelvic hematoma ( I2 =0%; RR 1.65; 95% CI: 0.44-6.17; P =0.46), thromboembolic ( I2 =57%; RR 0.91; 95% CI: 0.35-2.38; P =0.85), ureteral injury ( I2 =33%; RR 0.28; 95% CI: 0.05-1.52; P =0.14), intraoperative bowel injury ( I2 =0%; RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.14-5.27; P =0.88), and lymphocele ( I2 =0%; RR 1.58; 95% CI: 0.54-4.60; P =0.40) between sPLND and ePLND. Additionally, no significant difference was observed in overall perioperative complications ( I2 =85%; RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.40-1.16; P =0.16). Furthermore, ePLND did not significantly reduce biochemical recurrence ( I2 =68%; RR 0.59; 95% CI: 0.28-1.24; P =0.16) of prostate cancer.

Conclusion: This analysis found no significant differences in overall perioperative complications or biochemical recurrence between sPLND and ePLND, but ePLND may offer enhanced diagnostic advantages by increasing the detection rate of lymph node metastasis.

Figure 1

Flowchart of the study selection process. RCTs, randomized controlled trials.

Figure 2

Forest plots showing the result of (A) operation time, (B) blood loss, (C) lymph nodes retrieved, (D) the percentage of patients with node-positive, and (E) length of hospital stay. Note. M–H, Mantel–Haenszel; df, degrees of freedom.

Figure 3

Forest plot showing the result of (A) pelvic hematoma, (B) thromboembolic events, (C) lymphedema, (D) urinary retention, (E) ureteral injury, (F) intraoperative bowel injury, (G) lymphocele, (H) overall complications and (I) biochemical recurrence in sPLND vs ePLND.