Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and a meta-analysis update

Kun Tang; Kehua Jiang; Hongbo Chen; Zhiqiang Chen; Hua Xu; Zhangqun Ye

doi:10.18632/oncotarget.13332

Oncotarget

Oncotarget (a primarily oncology-focused, peer-reviewed, open access journal) aims to maximize research impact through insightful peer-review; eliminate borders between specialties by linking different fields of oncology, cancer research and biomedical sciences; and foster application of basic and clinical science.

Its scope is unique. The term "oncotarget" encompasses all molecules, pathways, cellular functions, cell types, and even tissues that can be viewed as targets relevant to cancer as well as other diseases. The term was introduced in the inaugural Editorial, Introducing Oncotarget.

As of January 1, 2022, Oncotarget has shifted to a continuous publishing model. Papers will now be published continuously within yearly volumes in their final and complete form and then quickly released to Pubmed.

Subscribe to receive alerts once a paper has been published by Oncotarget.

Impact Journals, LLC is the publisher of Oncotarget: www.impactjournals.com.

Impact Journals is a member of the Wellcome Trust List of Compliant Publishers.

Impact Journals is a member of the Society for Scholarly Publishing.

On December 23, 2022, Oncotarget server experienced a DDoS attack. As a result, Oncotarget site was inaccessible for a few hours. Oncotarget team swiftly dealt with the situation and took it under control. This malicious action will be reported to the FBI.

Clinical Research Papers:

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and a meta-analysis update

Kun Tang, Kehua Jiang, Hongbo Chen, Zhiqiang Chen, Hua Xu _ and Zhangqun Ye

PDF | HTML | Supplementary Files | How to cite

Oncotarget. 2017; 8:32237-32257. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.13332

Metrics: PDF 2463 views | HTML 4263 views | ?

Abstract

Kun Tang1,*, Kehua Jiang1,2,*, Hongbo Chen2, Zhiqiang Chen1, Hua Xu1 and Zhangqun Ye1

1 Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

2 Department of Urology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, China

* These authors have contributed equally to this work

Correspondence to:

Hua Xu, email:

Keywords: robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; retropubic radical prostatectomy; prostate cancer; meta-analysis; update

Received: February 18, 2016 Accepted: October 21, 2016 Published: November 12, 2016

Abstract

CONTEXT: The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently, a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RARP with RRP. Outcomes of interest included perioperative, pathologic variables and complications.

RESULTS: 78 studies assessing RARP vs. RRP were included for meta-analysis. Although patients underwent RRP have shorter operative time than RARP (WMD: 39.85 minutes; P < 0.001), patients underwent RARP have less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -507.67ml; P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR = 0.13; P < 0.001), shorter time to remove catheter (WMD = -3.04day; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.62day; P < 0.001), lower PSM rates (OR:0.88; P = 0.04), fewer positive lymph nodes (OR:0.45;P < 0.001), fewer overall complications (OR:0.43; P < 0.001), higher 3- and 12-mo potent recovery rate (OR:3.19;P = 0.02; OR:2.37; P = 0.005, respectively), and lower readmission rate (OR:0.70, P = 0.03). The biochemical recurrence free survival of RARP is better than RRP (OR:1.33, P = 0.04). All the other calculated results are similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that RARP appears to be safe and effective to its counterpart RRP in selected patients.

All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
PII: 13332

Publication Alerts

Clinical Research Papers:

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and a meta-analysis update

Abstract