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 2524 views  |   HTML 4490 views  |   ?  


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


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.

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