AIM: To assess the 6-mo and 12-mo functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy(LRP);...AIM: To assess the 6-mo and 12-mo functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy(LRP); robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy(RARP). METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the Pub Med, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Web of Knowledge databases updated to March, 2014 for relevant published studies. After data extraction and quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk ofbias, meta-analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.1. Either a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model was used. Potential publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of the funnel plots, and verified by the Egger linear regression test. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified in total: 14 articles comparing LRP with RRP, 12 articles comparing RARP with RRP, and 11 articles comparing RARP with LRP. For urinary continence, a statistically significant advantage was observed in RARP compared with LRP or RRP both at 6 mo [odds ratio(OR) = 1.93; P < 0.01, OR = 2.23; P < 0.05, respectively] and 12 mo(OR = 1.47; P < 0.01, OR = 2.93; P < 0.01, respectively) postoperatively. The continence recovery rates after LRP and RRP, with obvious heterogeneity(6-mo: I2 = 74%; 12-mo: I2 = 75%), were equivalent(6-mo: P = 0.52; 12-mo: P = 0.75). In terms of potency recovery, for the first time, we ranked the three surgical approaches into a superiority level: RARP > LRP > RRP, with a statistically significant difference at 12 mo [RARP vs LRP(OR = 1.99; P < 0.01); RARP vs RRP(OR = 2.66; P < 0.01); LRP vs RRP(OR = 1.34; P < 0.05)], respectively. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses according to adjustment of the age, body mass index, prostate volume, Gleason score or prostate-specific antigen did not vary significantly. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that minimally invasive approaches(RARP or LRP) are effective procedures for functional recovery. However, more high-quality randomized control trials investigating the long-term functional outcomes are needed.展开更多
基金Supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China,No.81172734
文摘AIM: To assess the 6-mo and 12-mo functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy(LRP); robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy(RARP). METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the Pub Med, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Web of Knowledge databases updated to March, 2014 for relevant published studies. After data extraction and quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk ofbias, meta-analysis was performed using Rev Man 5.1. Either a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model was used. Potential publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of the funnel plots, and verified by the Egger linear regression test. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified in total: 14 articles comparing LRP with RRP, 12 articles comparing RARP with RRP, and 11 articles comparing RARP with LRP. For urinary continence, a statistically significant advantage was observed in RARP compared with LRP or RRP both at 6 mo [odds ratio(OR) = 1.93; P < 0.01, OR = 2.23; P < 0.05, respectively] and 12 mo(OR = 1.47; P < 0.01, OR = 2.93; P < 0.01, respectively) postoperatively. The continence recovery rates after LRP and RRP, with obvious heterogeneity(6-mo: I2 = 74%; 12-mo: I2 = 75%), were equivalent(6-mo: P = 0.52; 12-mo: P = 0.75). In terms of potency recovery, for the first time, we ranked the three surgical approaches into a superiority level: RARP > LRP > RRP, with a statistically significant difference at 12 mo [RARP vs LRP(OR = 1.99; P < 0.01); RARP vs RRP(OR = 2.66; P < 0.01); LRP vs RRP(OR = 1.34; P < 0.05)], respectively. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses according to adjustment of the age, body mass index, prostate volume, Gleason score or prostate-specific antigen did not vary significantly. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that minimally invasive approaches(RARP or LRP) are effective procedures for functional recovery. However, more high-quality randomized control trials investigating the long-term functional outcomes are needed.
