Positive Surgical Margin and Perioperative Complication Rates of Primary Surgical Treatments for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Prostatectomy

详细信息	查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

• 作者：Ashutosh Tewari^a ; ^{ashtewarimd@gmail.com} ; Prasanna Sooriakumaran^a ; ^b ; Daniel A. Bloch^c ; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden^d ; April E. Hebert^d ; Peter Wiklund^b
• 关键词：Robotics ; Laparoscopy ; Retropubic ; Prostatectomy ; Complications ; Prostate cancer ; Margins
• 刊名：European Urology
• 出版年：2012
• 期刊代码：289_03022838
• 类别：med
• 出版时间：July, 2012
• 卷：62
• 期：1
• 页码：1-15
• 文件大小：751 K

摘要

Context

Radical prostatectomy (RP) approaches have rarely been compared adequately with regard to margin and perioperative complication rates.

Objective

Review the literature from 2002 to 2010 and compare margin and perioperative complication rates for open retropubic RP (ORP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted LRP (RALP).

Evidence acquisition

Summary data were abstracted from 400 original research articles representing 167 184 ORP, 57 303 LRP, and 62 389 RALP patients (total: 286 876). Articles were found through PubMed and Scopus searches and met a priori inclusion criteria (eg, surgery after 1990, reporting margin rates and/or perioperative complications, study size >25 cases). The primary outcomes were positive surgical margin (PSM) rates, as well as total intra- and perioperative complication rates. Secondary outcomes included blood loss, transfusions, conversions, length of hospital stay, and rates for specific individual complications. Weighted averages were compared for each outcome using propensity adjustment.

Evidence synthesis

After propensity adjustment, the LRP group had higher positive surgical margin rates than the RALP group but similar rates to the ORP group. LRP and RALP showed significantly lower blood loss and transfusions, and a shorter length of hospital stay than the ORP group. Total perioperative complication rates were higher for ORP and LRP than for RALP. Total intraoperative complication rates were low for all modalities but lowest for RALP. Rates for readmission, reoperation, nerve, ureteral, and rectal injury, deep vein thrombosis, pneumonia, hematoma, lymphocele, anastomotic leak, fistula, and wound infection showed significant differences between groups, generally favoring RALP. The lack of randomized controlled trials, use of margin status as an indicator of oncologic control, and inability to perform cost comparisons are limitations of this study.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates that RALP is at least equivalent to ORP or LRP in terms of margin rates and suggests that RALP provides certain advantages, especially regarding decreased adverse events.