Robotic-Assisted vs. Open Simple Prostatectomy for Large Prostates: A Meta-Analysis

机器人辅助前列腺切除术与开放式单纯前列腺切除术治疗大前列腺:一项荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and open simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. Methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Science databases for studies published through December 2020. Controlled trials on RASP and OSP for large prostates were included. The meta-analysis was conducted with the Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: A total of seven studies with 3,777 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in IPSS (WMD, 0.72; 95%CI: -0.31, 1.76; P = 0.17), QoL (WMD, 0.00; 95%CI: -0.39, 0.39; P > 0.99), Qmax (WMD, 1.88; 95% CI: -1.15, 4.91; P = 0.22), or PVR (WMD, -10.48; 95%CI: -25.13, 4.17; P = 0.16) among patients undergoing RASP and OSP. However, compared with patients who underwent OSP, patients who underwent RASP had a shorter LOS (WMD, -2.83; 95%CI: -3.68, -1.98; P < 0.001), less EBL (WMD, -304.68; 95% CI: -432.91, -176.44; P < 0.001), a shorter CT (WMD, -2.61; 95%CI: -3.94, -1.29; P < 0.001), and fewer overall complications (OR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.57; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, RASP was associated with a longer OT (WMD, 59.69, 95% CI: 49.40, 69.98; P < 0.001). Conclusion: The results of the current study demonstrated that RASP provided similar efficacy to those of OSP in the treatment of large prostate, while maintaining better security. Our findings indicate that RASP is a feasible and effective alternative to OSP.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。