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
Review
. 2025 Jun 24;19(1):321.
doi: 10.1007/s11701-025-02486-z.

Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination vs. standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of two-arm comparative studies on functional and oncological outcomes

Affiliations
Review

Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination vs. standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of two-arm comparative studies on functional and oncological outcomes

Tingxuan Lv et al. J Robot Surg. .

Abstract

The precise balance between nerve preservation and tumor control during robot-assisted prostatectomy remains a clinical challenge. The NeuroSAFE technique can guide secondary resection through intraoperative real-time frozen pathology, but its overall value for perioperative safety and oncological and functional prognosis is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study was to carry out a systematic evaluation of the impact of NeuroSAFE technology on perioperative safety and functional and oncological outcomes. In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted, with a cutoff date of April 2025. NeuroSAFE technology was comprehensively evaluated from the perspectives of oncology, functionality, and perioperative safety. This meta-analysis included 14 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 12 non-randomized studies; sample size = 26,442), in which a total of 14,458 patients underwent NeuroSAFE robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and 11,984 patients underwent standard RARP. NeuroSAFE significantly reduced the rate of positive surgical margins (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.59-0.87, p < 0.001) and the PSA persistence rate (OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.05-5.64, p < 0.05) while also reducing the 2-year biochemical recurrence rate (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.45-1.45). The functional outcomes revealed that NeuroSAFE demonstrated superiority in preserving the neurovascular bundle (OR: 3.86, 95% CI: 1.56-9.58, p < 0.001) and improving postoperative erectile function (OR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.65-3.50, p < 0.05) but no significant advantage in urinary control (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.07-2.09, p > 0.05). During the perioperative period, NeuroSAFE prolonged the surgical time (mean difference: + 22.84 min, p < 0.001) but did not increase the incidence of serious adverse events (3% vs. 3% SAEs). Rare complications included, among other events, one death due to cecal rupture. Our meta-analysis confirmed that the NeuroSAFE technique offers advantages over standard RARP in terms of tumor control, functional preservation, and nerve preservation rates without increasing the incidence of severe postoperative adverse events. Although this technique prolongs the surgical time, its overall advantages are evident. Its long-term efficacy and safety require validation through multicenter, large-sample randomized controlled trials.

Keywords: Da Vinci; Meta-analysis; NeuroSAFE; Prostate cancer; Standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics statement: This manuscript is a review of existing data. The institutional research committee's ethical standards, as well as the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent revisions or equivalent ethical standards, were followed in all studies involving human subjects. Official approval was not necessary for this research. None of the authors conducted any research on animals for this article. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

References

    1. Siegel RL, Kratzer TB, Giaquinto AN, et al (2025) Cancer statistics, 2025. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 75:10–45. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21871
    1. Li J, Xu C, Lee HJ et al (2020) A genomic and epigenomic atlas of prostate cancer in Asian populations. Nature 580:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2135-x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Adamaki M, Zoumpourlis V (2021) Prostate Cancer Biomarkers: From diagnosis to prognosis and precision-guided therapeutics. Pharmacol Ther 228:107932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2021.107932 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC et al (2012) Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.057 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wu SY, Chang CL, Chen CI, Huang CC (2021) Comparison of Acute and Chronic Surgical Complications Following Robot-Assisted, Laparoscopic, and Traditional Open Radical Prostatectomy Among Men in Taiwan. JAMA Netw Open 4:e2120156. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20156 - DOI - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources