Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure

被引:7
作者
Hong, Cao De [1 ]
Ren, Liu Liang [1 ]
Qiang, Wei [1 ]
Jia, Wang [1 ]
Chun, Hu Ying [2 ]
Lu, Yang [1 ]
Hua, Liu Zheng [1 ]
Ping, Li Heng [1 ,3 ]
Bing, Yan Shi [1 ]
Xiang, Li Yun [1 ]
机构
[1] Sichuan Univ, West China Hosp, Dept Urol, Chengdu 610064, Peoples R China
[2] Sichuan Univ, West China Hosp, Dept Geriatr, Chengdu 610064, Peoples R China
[3] Gansu Prov Hosp, Dept Urol, Lanzhou, Peoples R China
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1038/srep14442
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Worldwide, prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common malignancy in males. We undertook a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a transperitoneal (TLRP) approach, versus that of an extraperitoneal (ELRP) approach, for treatment of localized PCa. A comprehensive literature search retrieved 14 publications, with a total of 1715 patients. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that an ELRP approach was associated with a significantly shorter postoperative catheterization time (MD: 1.99; 95% CI: 0.52 to 3.54; P = 0.008), less blood transfusion rate (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.06; P = 0.04), shorter intestinal function recovery time (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.09; P < 0.0001) and shorter hospitalization days (MD: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.39; P = 0.002). In addition, our results showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups in operation time (MD: 19.39; 95% CI: -6.67 to 45.44; P = 0.014), intraoperative blood loss (MD: 4.89; 95% CI: -105.00 to 114.79; P = 0.93) and total complication rate (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.74; P = 0.27). In summary, our meta-analysis showed that ELRP is likely to be a safe and feasible alternative for localized PCa patients compared with TLRP.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1992, J UROLOGY
[2]  
[Anonymous], NEWCASTLE OTTAWA SCA
[3]  
[Anonymous], J PRACTICAL ONCOLOGY
[4]  
[Anonymous], NED TIJDSCHR GENEESK
[5]  
[Anonymous], YIYAO QIANYAN
[6]   Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An assessment of 156 cases [J].
Brown, JA ;
Rodin, D ;
Lee, B ;
Dahl, DM .
UROLOGY, 2005, 65 (02) :320-324
[7]   Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A false debate over a real challenge [J].
Cathelineau, X ;
Cahill, D ;
Widmer, H ;
Rozet, F ;
Baumert, H ;
Vallancien, G .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 171 (02) :714-716
[8]   Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Critical Review of Outcomes Reported by High-Volume Centers [J].
Coelho, Rafael F. ;
Rocco, Bernardo ;
Patel, Manoj B. ;
Orvieto, Marcelo A. ;
Chauhan, Sanket ;
Ficarra, Vincenzo ;
Melegari, Sara ;
Palmer, Kenneth J. ;
Patel, Vipul R. .
JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2010, 24 (12) :2003-2015
[9]   Transperitoneal or extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Does the approach matter? [J].
Eden, CG ;
King, D ;
Kooiman, GG ;
Adams, TH ;
Sullivan, ME ;
Vass, JA .
JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 172 (06) :2218-2223
[10]   Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis [J].
Erdogru, T ;
Teber, D ;
Frede, T ;
Marrero, R ;
Hammady, A ;
Seemann, O ;
Rassweiler, J .
EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2004, 46 (03) :312-319