Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes—a meta-analysis
- 44 Downloads
The current study aimed to carry out a comprehensive meta-analysis on the existing evidence to quantify and compare the oncological, surgical and functional outcomes following radical prostatectomy between TURP group and Non-TURP group.
A systematic literature search was conducted using EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies published in English up to March 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager.
There were 13 studies included in the present study. Our results suggest that TURP group demonstrates a significantly higher positive surgical margin rate, bladder neck reconstruction rate and overall complication rate compared with Non-TURP group (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.09–1.58, P = 0.004, I2 = 0%; OR = 14.36, 95% CI 2.93–70.45, P = 0.001, I2 = 81%; OR = 2.63, 95% CI 1.87–3.71, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%); whereas TURP group demonstrates a significantly lower nerve sparing rate compared with Non-TURP group (OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.22–0.43, P < 0.00001, I2 = 40%); the operation time, blood loss and 1-year urinary continence rate are same between TURP group and Non-TURP group (MD = 4.25, 95% CI − 0.13 to 8.63, P = 0.06, I2 = 34%; MD = 27.29, 95% CI − 10.31 to 64.90, P = 0.15, I2 = 39%; OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.43–1.06, P = 0.09, I2 = 0%).
This meta-analysis demonstrates that Non-TURP group may have a great advantage over TURP group in terms of positive surgical margin rate, bladder neck reconstruction rate, overall complication rate and sparing rate. The operation time, blood loss and 1-year urinary continence rate are comparable between TURP group and Non-TURP group. Therefore, important information should be given to those patients at risk of prostate cancer that TURP procedure may increase perioperative complications in case of a following radical prostatectomy. In the meantime, our meta-analysis found that each of these four subgroups (RARP, LRP, ORP and RARP/ORP) has its own advantages or disadvantages in every pool results. So when radical prostatectomy is performed on patients with TURP history, the appropriate operation method should be selected as per the conditions of patients, doctors and hospitals.
KeywordsRadical prostatectomy Prostate cancer Transurethral resection of the prostate Meta-analysis
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Sichuan Provincial Department of Education (16ZB0227), Scientific Research Foundation of Health and Family Planning Commission of Sichuan Province (17PJ155) and City of Nanchong Strategic Cooperation with Local Universities Foundation of technology (NSMC20170421, NSMC20170111, 18SXHZ0581, 18SXHZ0128).
SC, TW: project development, public funding. XD, XXM, THH, TC, JBL: data collection. HL, XD: data analysis, manuscript writing/editing.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 13.Pompe RS, Leyh-Bannurah S, Preisser F et al (2018) Radical prostatectomy after previous TUR-P: oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes. Urol Oncol Semin Original Investig 36:521–527Google Scholar
- 21.Pastore AL, Palleschi G, Silvestri L et al (2015) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of prostate using a catheter balloon inflated in prostatic urethra: oncological and functional outcomes from a matched pair analysis. Int J Urol 22:1037–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Kania P, Wośkowiak P, Salagierski M (2019) Preservation of continence in radical prostatectomy patients: a laparoscopic surgeon’s perspective. Central Eur J Urol 72:32Google Scholar