Cargando…
Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis
Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and open simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Science databases for studies published through December 2020. Cont...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8330838/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34355017 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.695318 |
_version_ | 1783732803704193024 |
---|---|
author | Xia, Zhongyou Li, Jinze Yang, Xiaoying Jing, Hao Niu, Chao Li, Xianhui Li, Yunxiang Zhang, Zongping Wu, Ji |
author_facet | Xia, Zhongyou Li, Jinze Yang, Xiaoying Jing, Hao Niu, Chao Li, Xianhui Li, Yunxiang Zhang, Zongping Wu, Ji |
author_sort | Xia, Zhongyou |
collection | PubMed |
description | Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and open simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Science databases for studies published through December 2020. Controlled trials on RASP and OSP for large prostates were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: A total of seven studies with 3,777 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in IPSS (WMD, 0.72; 95%CI: −0.31, 1.76; P = 0.17), QoL (WMD, 0.00; 95%CI: −0.39, 0.39; P > 0.99), Qmax (WMD, 1.88; 95% CI: −1.15, 4.91; P = 0.22), or PVR (WMD, −10.48; 95%CI: −25.13, 4.17; P = 0.16) among patients undergoing RASP and OSP. However, compared with patients who underwent OSP, patients who underwent RASP had a shorter LOS (WMD, −2.83; 95%CI: −3.68, −1.98; P < 0.001), less EBL (WMD, −304.68; 95% CI: −432.91, −176.44; P < 0.001), a shorter CT (WMD, −2.61; 95%CI: −3.94, −1.29; P < 0.001), and fewer overall complications (OR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.57; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, RASP was associated with a longer OT (WMD, 59.69, 95% CI: 49.40, 69.98; P < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrated that RASP provided similar efficacy to those of OSP in the treatment of large prostate, while maintaining better security. Our findings indicate that RASP is a feasible and effective alternative to OSP. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8330838 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83308382021-08-04 Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis Xia, Zhongyou Li, Jinze Yang, Xiaoying Jing, Hao Niu, Chao Li, Xianhui Li, Yunxiang Zhang, Zongping Wu, Ji Front Surg Surgery Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and open simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Science databases for studies published through December 2020. Controlled trials on RASP and OSP for large prostates were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: A total of seven studies with 3,777 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in IPSS (WMD, 0.72; 95%CI: −0.31, 1.76; P = 0.17), QoL (WMD, 0.00; 95%CI: −0.39, 0.39; P > 0.99), Qmax (WMD, 1.88; 95% CI: −1.15, 4.91; P = 0.22), or PVR (WMD, −10.48; 95%CI: −25.13, 4.17; P = 0.16) among patients undergoing RASP and OSP. However, compared with patients who underwent OSP, patients who underwent RASP had a shorter LOS (WMD, −2.83; 95%CI: −3.68, −1.98; P < 0.001), less EBL (WMD, −304.68; 95% CI: −432.91, −176.44; P < 0.001), a shorter CT (WMD, −2.61; 95%CI: −3.94, −1.29; P < 0.001), and fewer overall complications (OR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.57; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, RASP was associated with a longer OT (WMD, 59.69, 95% CI: 49.40, 69.98; P < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrated that RASP provided similar efficacy to those of OSP in the treatment of large prostate, while maintaining better security. Our findings indicate that RASP is a feasible and effective alternative to OSP. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8330838/ /pubmed/34355017 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.695318 Text en Copyright © 2021 Xia, Li, Yang, Jing, Niu, Li, Li, Zhang and Wu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Surgery Xia, Zhongyou Li, Jinze Yang, Xiaoying Jing, Hao Niu, Chao Li, Xianhui Li, Yunxiang Zhang, Zongping Wu, Ji Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis |
title | Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | robotic-assisted vs. open simple prostatectomy for large prostates: a meta-analysis |
topic | Surgery |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8330838/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34355017 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.695318 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT xiazhongyou roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis AT lijinze roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis AT yangxiaoying roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis AT jinghao roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis AT niuchao roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis AT lixianhui roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis AT liyunxiang roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis AT zhangzongping roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis AT wuji roboticassistedvsopensimpleprostatectomyforlargeprostatesametaanalysis |