Comparison of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy outcomes

A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hyun Ju Seo, Na Rae Lee, Soo Kyung Son, Dae Keun Kim, KoonHo Rha, Seon Heui Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1165-1177
Number of pages13
JournalYonsei medical journal
Volume57
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016 Sep 1

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Meta-Analysis
Safety
Recurrence
Urinary Incontinence
Libraries
Prostatic Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials
Databases
Survival

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Seo, Hyun Ju ; Lee, Na Rae ; Son, Soo Kyung ; Kim, Dae Keun ; Rha, KoonHo ; Lee, Seon Heui. / Comparison of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy outcomes : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Yonsei medical journal. 2016 ; Vol. 57, No. 5. pp. 1165-1177.
@article{9c760b78ca514a2e9b4c3e57da9f6531,
title = "Comparison of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
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.",
author = "Seo, {Hyun Ju} and Lee, {Na Rae} and Son, {Soo Kyung} and Kim, {Dae Keun} and KoonHo Rha and Lee, {Seon Heui}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "1165--1177",
journal = "Yonsei Medical Journal",
issn = "0513-5796",
publisher = "Yonsei University College of Medicine",
number = "5",

}

Comparison of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy outcomes : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Seo, Hyun Ju; Lee, Na Rae; Son, Soo Kyung; Kim, Dae Keun; Rha, KoonHo; Lee, Seon Heui.

In: Yonsei medical journal, Vol. 57, No. 5, 01.09.2016, p. 1165-1177.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy outcomes

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Seo, Hyun Ju

AU - Lee, Na Rae

AU - Son, Soo Kyung

AU - Kim, Dae Keun

AU - Rha, KoonHo

AU - Lee, Seon Heui

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978137599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978137599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165

DO - 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165

M3 - Article

VL - 57

SP - 1165

EP - 1177

JO - Yonsei Medical Journal

JF - Yonsei Medical Journal

SN - 0513-5796

IS - 5

ER -