Single-port and multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis

被引:3
|
作者
Nguyen, Tuan Thanh [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Dobbs, Ryan W. [4 ]
Vuong, Huy Gia [5 ]
Quy, Khoa [2 ]
Ngo, Hanh Thi Tuyet [2 ]
Mai, Anh Tuan [2 ]
Tuyet, Mai Tran Thi [2 ]
Thai, Minh Sam [2 ,3 ]
Tiong, Ho Yee [6 ]
Choi, Se Young [7 ]
Shahait, Mohammed [8 ]
Lee, David I. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Irvine, Dept Urol, 3800 W Chapman Ave,Suite 7200, Orange, CA 92868 USA
[2] Univ Med & Pharm Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
[3] Cho Ray Hosp, Dept Urol, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
[4] Cook Cty Hlth & Hosp Syst, Chicago, IL USA
[5] Oklahoma Univ Hlth Sci Ctr, Oklahoma City, OK USA
[6] Natl Univ Singapore Hosp, Singapore, Singapore
[7] Chung Ang Univ, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Chung Ang Univ Hosp, Seoul, South Korea
[8] King Hussein Canc Ctr, Dept Surg, Amman, Jordan
关键词
Functional outcomes; Meta; -analysis; Oncologic outcomes; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Robotic surgery; Single; -port; PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES; CANCER; SURGERY; HETEROGENEITY; SURVEILLANCE; SITE;
D O I
10.1016/j.prnil.2023.04.002
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes between single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) and multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (MP-RARP) via a meta-analysis. Methods: For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until January 15, 2022. A meta-analysis has been reported in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR Guidelines. The risk ratio and weighted mean difference (MD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of the 368 retrieved abstracts, 41 underwent full-text review, and seven studies were included in the final analysis, comprising a total cohort of 1,934 cases of RARP (355 SP-RARP cases and 1,579 MP-RARP cases). Compared to MP-RARP, the SP-RARP group had less postoperative pain score (MD =-0.7, 95% CI-1 to-0.4, P<0.001), morphine milligram equivalents usage (MD =-3.8, 95% CI-7.5 to-0.1, P=0.04), hospital stay (MD =-1, 95% CI-1.8 to-0.1, P=0.019), and urinary catheterization time (MD =-1.1, 95% CI-1.9 to-0.3, P=0.008). However, the SP-RARP group had a longer console time than the MP-RARP group (MD = 5.3, 95% CI 2.6 to 7.9, P<0.001). Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that early results were mostly equivalent with the single-port approach. This technology may help to reduce the hospital stay and postoperative pain for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy compared to MP-RARP, without compromising the functional and early oncological outcomes. (c) 2023 The Asian Pacific Prostate Society. Published by Elsevier B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:187 / 194
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Modified hood technique for single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy contributes to early recovery of continence
    Zhang, Haoxun
    Ning, Zikuan
    Jia, Guang
    Zhang, Guoling
    Wang, Jiuliang
    Liu, Hua
    Tao, Boju
    Wang, Chunyang
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2023, 10
  • [32] Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Short-term outcomes and technique description
    Kwon, Hyeok Jae
    Kang, San
    Rhew, Seung Ah
    Yoon, Chang Eil
    Shin, Dongho
    Bang, Seokhwan
    Moon, Hyong Woo
    Bae, Woong Jin
    Cho, Hyuk Jin
    Ha, U-Syn
    Lee, Ji Youl
    Kim, Sae Woong
    Hong, Sung-Hoo
    INVESTIGATIVE AND CLINICAL UROLOGY, 2024, 65 (05) : 442 - 450
  • [33] Technical advancements in robotic prostatectomy: single-port extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and single-port transperineal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Aminsharifi, Alireza
    Sawczyn, Guilherme
    Wilson, Clark A.
    Garisto, Juan
    Kaouk, Jihad
    TRANSLATIONAL ANDROLOGY AND UROLOGY, 2020, 9 (02) : 848 - 855
  • [34] Comparison of Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Conventional Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis
    Xu, Jiang-Nan
    Xu, Zhen-Yu
    Yin, Hu-Ming
    FRONTIERS IN SURGERY, 2021, 8
  • [35] Early outcomes of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: lessons learned from the learning-curve experience
    Moschovas, Marcio Covas
    Bhat, Seetharam
    Onol, Fikret
    Rogers, Travis
    Patel, Vipul
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2021, 127 (01) : 114 - 121
  • [36] Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Karakiewicz, Pierre I.
    Sun, Maxine
    FUTURE ONCOLOGY, 2015, 11 (20) : 2767 - 2773
  • [37] Low Risk of Postoperative Hernia Following Single-port Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Report From the Single-port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC)
    Soputro, Nicolas A.
    Ferguson, Ethan L.
    Ramos-Carpinteyro, Roxana
    Calvo, Ruben Sauer
    Nguyen, Jennifer
    Moschovas, Marcio C.
    Wilder, Samantha
    Chavali, Jaya S.
    Okhawere, Kennedy E.
    De La Rosa, Ruth Sanchez
    Saini, Indu
    Peabody, James
    Badani, Ketan K.
    Rogers, Craig
    Joseph, Jean
    Patel, Vipul
    Stifelman, Michael
    Ahmed, Mutahar
    Crivellaro, Simone
    Kim, Moses
    Nix, Jeffrey
    Kaouk, Jihad
    UROLOGY, 2023, 180 : 151 - 159
  • [38] Perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Jiang, Yu
    Liu, Yang
    Qin, Shize
    Zhong, Shuting
    Huang, Xiaohua
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2023, 21 (01)
  • [39] Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Approach for Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Purnomo, Stefanus
    Hamid, Agus Rizal Ardy Hariandy
    Siregar, Moammar Andar Roemare
    Afriansyah, Andika
    Mirza, Hendy
    Seno, Doddy Hami
    Purnomo, Nugroho
    UROLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2023, 49 (05) : 285 - 292
  • [40] EVOLUTION OF ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
    Orvieto, M. A.
    Patel, V. R.
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2009, 98 (02) : 76 - 88