Cargando…

Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies

BACKGROUND: Intrafascial prostatectomy was a modified technique from the conventional nerve-sparing surgery in order to improve patients’ post-surgical continence and erectile function; however, ongoing controversy exists regarding the oncological safety of this technique. In this study we aimed to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Xiao, Wu, Yiqi, Guo, Jia, Chen, Hui, Weng, Xiaodong, Liu, Xiuheng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6537360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31133039
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0476-2
_version_ 1783421988818124800
author Wang, Xiao
Wu, Yiqi
Guo, Jia
Chen, Hui
Weng, Xiaodong
Liu, Xiuheng
author_facet Wang, Xiao
Wu, Yiqi
Guo, Jia
Chen, Hui
Weng, Xiaodong
Liu, Xiuheng
author_sort Wang, Xiao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intrafascial prostatectomy was a modified technique from the conventional nerve-sparing surgery in order to improve patients’ post-surgical continence and erectile function; however, ongoing controversy exists regarding the oncological safety of this technique. In this study we aimed to provide a critical and pooled analysis based on published literatures regarding the oncological outcomes after intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy. METHODS: Database searches were performed for published articles till June 2018 on PubMed. Three reviewers screened fulfilled papers and extracted data independently. Main outcome was the positive surgical margins (PSMs) rates stratified by pathological stages. We performed both one-arm and comparative meta-analysis to evaluate the oncological safety of intrafascial technique. Moreover, we built meta-regression models to assess the confounding factors. RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 117 records after electronic search, of which 21 studies were finally included in this review. There were 15 controlled studies and 6 surgical series. Our one-arm meta-analysis demonstrated that the total PSM rates after intrafascial techniques ranging from 2.2 to 35%, with a pooled rate of 14.5% on average (480 of 3151 patients, 95% confidence interval[CI]: 11.2–17.5%). Meta-regression model showed that patients’ age, pT2 cancer percentage and Selection Score of Oncological Safety (SSOS) were significantly associated with total PSM rate; moreover, each 1 point of SSOS could decrease the total PSM rate by 1.3% on average. Comparative meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intra- and inter-fascial group regarding PSM rates. CONCLUSIONS: With stringent case selection and when performed by experienced surgeons, intrafascial prostatectomy could offer an acceptable or, at least, equivalent PSM rate compared with the conventional interfascial approach. Preoperative SSOS more than 7 points could be considered as an indication of intrafascial radical prostatectomy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12894-019-0476-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6537360
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65373602019-05-30 Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies Wang, Xiao Wu, Yiqi Guo, Jia Chen, Hui Weng, Xiaodong Liu, Xiuheng BMC Urol Research Article BACKGROUND: Intrafascial prostatectomy was a modified technique from the conventional nerve-sparing surgery in order to improve patients’ post-surgical continence and erectile function; however, ongoing controversy exists regarding the oncological safety of this technique. In this study we aimed to provide a critical and pooled analysis based on published literatures regarding the oncological outcomes after intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy. METHODS: Database searches were performed for published articles till June 2018 on PubMed. Three reviewers screened fulfilled papers and extracted data independently. Main outcome was the positive surgical margins (PSMs) rates stratified by pathological stages. We performed both one-arm and comparative meta-analysis to evaluate the oncological safety of intrafascial technique. Moreover, we built meta-regression models to assess the confounding factors. RESULTS: We retrieved a total of 117 records after electronic search, of which 21 studies were finally included in this review. There were 15 controlled studies and 6 surgical series. Our one-arm meta-analysis demonstrated that the total PSM rates after intrafascial techniques ranging from 2.2 to 35%, with a pooled rate of 14.5% on average (480 of 3151 patients, 95% confidence interval[CI]: 11.2–17.5%). Meta-regression model showed that patients’ age, pT2 cancer percentage and Selection Score of Oncological Safety (SSOS) were significantly associated with total PSM rate; moreover, each 1 point of SSOS could decrease the total PSM rate by 1.3% on average. Comparative meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intra- and inter-fascial group regarding PSM rates. CONCLUSIONS: With stringent case selection and when performed by experienced surgeons, intrafascial prostatectomy could offer an acceptable or, at least, equivalent PSM rate compared with the conventional interfascial approach. Preoperative SSOS more than 7 points could be considered as an indication of intrafascial radical prostatectomy. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12894-019-0476-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6537360/ /pubmed/31133039 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0476-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wang, Xiao
Wu, Yiqi
Guo, Jia
Chen, Hui
Weng, Xiaodong
Liu, Xiuheng
Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies
title Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies
title_full Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies
title_fullStr Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies
title_full_unstemmed Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies
title_short Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies
title_sort oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6537360/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31133039
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0476-2
work_keys_str_mv AT wangxiao oncologicalsafetyofintrafascialnervesparingradicalprostatectomycomparedwithconventionalprocessapooledreviewandmetaregressionanalysisbasedonavailablestudies
AT wuyiqi oncologicalsafetyofintrafascialnervesparingradicalprostatectomycomparedwithconventionalprocessapooledreviewandmetaregressionanalysisbasedonavailablestudies
AT guojia oncologicalsafetyofintrafascialnervesparingradicalprostatectomycomparedwithconventionalprocessapooledreviewandmetaregressionanalysisbasedonavailablestudies
AT chenhui oncologicalsafetyofintrafascialnervesparingradicalprostatectomycomparedwithconventionalprocessapooledreviewandmetaregressionanalysisbasedonavailablestudies
AT wengxiaodong oncologicalsafetyofintrafascialnervesparingradicalprostatectomycomparedwithconventionalprocessapooledreviewandmetaregressionanalysisbasedonavailablestudies
AT liuxiuheng oncologicalsafetyofintrafascialnervesparingradicalprostatectomycomparedwithconventionalprocessapooledreviewandmetaregressionanalysisbasedonavailablestudies