Infectious Complications of Conventional Laparoscopic vs Robotic Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:5
作者
Marra, Alexandre R. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Puig-Asensio, Mireia [1 ,2 ]
Edmond, Michael B. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Schweizer, Marin L. [2 ,5 ]
Nepple, Kenneth G. [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Iowa Hosp & Clin, Off Clin Qual Safety & Performance Improvement, C51 GH,200 Hawkins Dr, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[2] Carver Coll Med, Div Gen Internal Med, Dept Internal Med, Iowa City, IA USA
[3] Hosp Israelita Albert Einstein, Div Med Practice, Sao Paulo, Brazil
[4] Univ Iowa, Dept Internal Med, Div Infect Dis, Carver Coll Med, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
[5] Iowa City Vet Affairs Hlth Care Syst, Ctr Comprehens Access & Delivery Res & Evaluat, Iowa City, IA USA
[6] Univ Iowa, Dept Urol, Carver Coll Med, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA
关键词
laparoscopy; robotic; prostatectomy; infectious complication; minimally invasive technique; ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; POSITIVE SURGICAL MARGIN; PERIOPERATIVE OUTCOMES; FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES; ONCOLOGIC OUTCOMES; CANCER; PURE; TRENDS; MANAGEMENT; MORBIDITY;
D O I
10.1089/end.2018.0815
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
Background: Recent studies have shown that using minimally invasive surgical techniques (conventional laparoscopy or robotic) for prostatectomy is associated with lower perioperative complication rates compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. However, differences in infectious complications between these minimally invasive approaches are not well characterized. To study this further, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of prostatectomy, comparing robotic prostatectomy (RP) with conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy (LP). Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through September 2018 for studies evaluating minimally invasive prostatectomy and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled odds ratio (pOR) estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I-2 estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. pORs were calculated separately based on the indication for prostatectomy. Results: Fifteen studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 14,121 patients undergoing minimally invasive prostatectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between RP and LP (pOR 0.94; 95% CI 0.50, 1.76). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing RP with LP among patients with prostate cancer (pOR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43, 1.24). We observed that infectious complications were nearly threefold higher with the robotic approach in earlier studies (published between 2007 and 2012, pOR 2.81; 95% CI 1.07, 7.39), but no significant difference was found in later studies (between 2013 and 2018, pOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.40, 1.57). Conclusions: The rate of infectious complications associated with RP was no different than that associated with conventional LP.
引用
收藏
页码:179 / 188
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
[1]   Comparing conventional laparoscopic to robotic-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection in men with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis [J].
Albisinni, Simone ;
Aoun, Fouad ;
Le Dinh, Dam ;
Zanaty, Marc ;
Hawaux, Eric ;
Peltier, Alexandre ;
Van Velthoven, Roland .
MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2017, 69 (01) :101-107
[2]   Corticosteroids for acute traumatic brain injury [J].
Alderson, P ;
Roberts, I .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2005, (01)
[3]  
[Anonymous], INT J GYNECOL CANC
[4]  
[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY
[5]  
Asawabharuj Kittipak, 2014, Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, V97, P393
[6]   Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic and Laparoscopic Simple Prostatectomy: A European-American Multi-institutional Analysis [J].
Autorino, Riccardo ;
Zargar, Homayoun ;
Mariano, Mirandolino B. ;
Sanchez-Salas, Rafael ;
Sotelo, Rene J. ;
Chlosta, Piotr L. ;
Castillo, Octavio ;
Matei, Deliu V. ;
Celia, Antonio ;
Koc, Gokhan ;
Vora, Anup ;
Aron, Monish ;
Parsons, J. Kellogg ;
Pini, Giovannalberto ;
Jensen, James C. ;
Sutherland, Douglas ;
Cathelineau, Xavier ;
Nunez Bragayrac, Luciano A. ;
Varkarakis, Ioannis M. ;
Amparore, Daniele ;
Ferro, Matteo ;
Gallo, Gaetano ;
Volpe, Alessandro ;
Vuruskan, Hakan ;
Bandi, Gaurav ;
Hwang, Jonathan ;
Nething, Josh ;
Muruve, Nic ;
Chopra, Sameer ;
Patel, Nishant D. ;
Derweesh, Ithaar ;
Weeks, David Champ ;
Spier, Ryan ;
Kowalczyk, Keith ;
Lynch, John ;
Harbin, Andrew ;
Verghese, Mohan ;
Samavedi, Srinivas ;
Molina, Wilson R. ;
Dias, Emanuel ;
Ahallal, Youness ;
Laydner, Humberto ;
Cherullo, Edward ;
De Cobelli, Ottavio ;
Thiel, David D. ;
Lagerkvist, Mikael ;
Haber, Georges-Pascal ;
Kaouk, Jihad ;
Kim, Fernando J. ;
Lima, Estevao .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2015, 68 (01) :86-94
[7]   Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. [J].
Begg, CB ;
Riedel, ER ;
Bach, PB ;
Kattan, MW ;
Schrag, D ;
Warren, JL ;
Scardino, PT .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2002, 346 (15) :1138-1144
[8]   Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study [J].
Coughlin, Geoffrey D. ;
Yaxley, John W. ;
Chambers, Suzanne K. ;
Occhipinti, Stefano ;
Samaratunga, Hema ;
Zajdlewicz, Leah ;
Teloken, Patrick ;
Dunglison, Nigel ;
Williams, Scott ;
Lavin, Martin F. ;
Gardiner, Robert A. .
LANCET ONCOLOGY, 2018, 19 (08) :1051-1060
[9]   Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Surgical, Oncological, and Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review [J].
De Carlo, Francesco ;
Celestino, Francesco ;
Verri, Cristian ;
Masedu, Francesco ;
Liberati, Emanuele ;
Di Stasi, Savino Mauro .
UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2014, 93 (04) :373-383
[10]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188