Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

No consensus has been attained regarding the utility of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We carried out a network meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis comparing RRP, LRP and RALRP on peri-operative and functional outcome measures. Electronic databases were searched for either randomized clinical trials or cohort studies comparing RALRP either with LRP or RRP in patients with localized PCa. Outcome measures were as follows: overall, pT2 and pT3-positive surgical margins (PSMs); biochemical recurrence (BCR); complication rates; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion rate; continence and potency rates; duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Publication bias, risk of bias and inconsistency were assessed. Inverse heterogeneity model was used for analysis. A total of 45 studies were included for the final analysis. We observed that RALRP and LRP did not differ significantly from RRP with regard to the following outcomes: overall PSM; pT2 and pT3 PSMs; OT; complication rate; continence and potency rates; total blood loss and hospital stay. Duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in RALRP than LRP and RRP while significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion and BCR were observed for both RALRP and LRP in comparison with RRP. To conclude, similar functional, operative and oncologic outcomes were observed for both RALRP and LRP compared to RRP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cancer stats facts: prostate cancer. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html. Accessed 15 April 2017

  2. Moul JW, Wu H, Sun L, McLeod DG, Amling C, Lance R et al (2002) Epidemiology of radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer in the era of prostate-specific antigen: an overview of the Department of Defense Center for Prostate Disease Research national database. Surgery 132:213–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lepor H (2005) A review of surgical techniques for radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol 7:S11–S17

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mayer E, Darzi A (2016) Innovation and surgical clinical trials. Lancet 388:1027–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Finkelstein J, Eckersberger E, Sadri H, Taneja SS, Lepor H, Djavan B (2010) Open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: the European and US experience. Rev Urol 12:35–43

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Agarwal G, Valderrama O, Luchey AM, Pow-Sang JM (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Cancer Control 22:283–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Guazzoni G et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G (2013) Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 159:130–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM et al (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162:777–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2017) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 5.1.0 edn. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 11 April 2017

  13. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis. http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/rtamblyn/Readings%5CThe%20Newcastle%20-%20Scale%20for%20assessing%20the%20quality%20of%20nonrandomised%20studies%20in%20meta-analyses.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2017

  14. Rucker G, Schwarzer G (2015) Ranking treatments in frequentist network meta-analysis works without resampling methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Rhee, HJ, Surmond R, Hak T (2017) User manual for meta-essentials: workbooks for meta-analysis (version 1.0). Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. http://www.erim.eur.nl/research-support/meta-essentials. Accessed 12 March 2017

  17. Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C (2011) Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 8:1503–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Asimakopoulos AD, Miano R, Di Lorenzo N, Spera E, Vespasiani G, Mugnier C (2013) Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon. Surg Endosc 27:4297–4304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, Herrell SD, Chang SS, Clark PE, Davis R, Baumgartner R, Phillips S, Cookson MS, Smith JA Jr (2010) Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol 183:990–996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Beauval JB, Roumiguié M, Ouali M, Doumerc N, Thoulouzan M, Mazerolles C, Rischmann P, Malavaud B, Soulié M (2015) A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre: oncologic and functional outcomes. Prog Urol 25:370–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Berge V, Berg RE, Hoff JR, Wessel N, Diep LM, Karlsen SJ, Eri LM (2013) A prospective study of transition from laparoscopic to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: quality of life outcomes after 36-month follow-up. Urology 81:781–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bier S, Hennenlotter J, Rausch S, Aufderklamm S, Martzog JC, Stenzl A, Schwentner C, Todenhöfer T (2016) Return to work and normal daily life activity after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy—a single surgeon analysis. Urol Int 96:280–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Busch J, Gonzalgo ML, Leva N, Ferrari M, Cash H, Kempkensteffen C, Hinz S, Miller K, Magheli A (2015) Matched comparison of robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy regarding pathologic and oncologic outcomes in obese patients. World J Urol 33:397–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A (2011) A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 59:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, D’Elia C, Secco S, Iafrate M, Cavalleri S, Artibani W (2009) A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 104:534–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderäng U, Thorsteinsdottir T, Lagerkvist M, Damber JE, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, Wiklund P, Steineck G, LAPPRO Steering Committee (2015) Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol 68:216–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hohwü L, Borre M, Ehlers L, Venborg Pedersen K (2011) A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ 14:403–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Joo EY, Moon YJ, Yoon SH, Chin JH, Hwang JH, Kim YK (2016) Comparison of acute kidney injury after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a propensity score matching analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e2650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML, Gettman MT (2009) Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int 103:448–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee D, Choi SK, Park J, Shim M, Kim A, Lee S, Song C, Ahn H (2015) Comparative analysis of oncologic outcomes for open vs. robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer. Korean. J Urol 56:572–579

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ludovico GM, Dachille G, Pagliarulo G, D’Elia C, Mondaini N, Gacci M, Detti B, Malossini G, Bartoletti R, Cai T (2013) Bilateral nerve sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is associated with faster continence recovery but not with erectile function recovery compared with retropubic open prostatectomy: the need for accurate selection of patients. Oncol Rep 29:2445–2450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lott FM, Favorito LA (2015) Is previous experience in laparoscopic necessary to perform robotic radical prostatectomy? A comparative study with robotic and the classic open procedure in patients with prostate cancer. Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira 30:229–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leyh-Bannurah SR, Hansen J, Isbarn H, Steuber T, Tennstedt P, Michl U, Schlomm T, Haese A, Heinzer H, Huland H, Graefen M, Budäus L (2014) Open and robot-assisted radical retropubic prostatectomy in men receiving ongoing low-dose aspirin medication: revisiting an old paradigm? BJU Int 114:396–403

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, Vallancien G (2002) Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168:945–949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mustafa M, Pettaway CA, Davis JW, Pisters L (2015) Robotic or open radical prostatectomy after previous open surgery in the pelvic region. Korean J Urol 56:131–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mustafa M, Davis JW, Gorgel SN, Pisters L (2017) Robotic or open radical prostatectomy in men with previous transurethral resection of prostate. Urol J 14:2955–2960

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Baumgartner RG, Smith JA Jr (2007) Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol 177:929–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M, Members of the VIP Team (2003) A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 92:205–210

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Tobias-Machado M, Mitre AI, Rubinstein M, Costa EF, Hidaka AK (2016) Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy learning curve for experienced laparoscopic surgeons: does it really exist? Int Braz J Urol 42:83–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tozawa K, Yasui T, Umemoto Y, Mizuno K, Okada A, Kawai N, Takahashi S, Kohri K (2014) Pitfalls of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparison of positive surgical margins between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. Int J Urol 21:976–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wallerstedt A, Tyritzis SI, Thorsteinsdottir T, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Gustafsson O, Hugosson J, Bjartell A, Wilderäng U, Wiklund NP, Steineck G, Haglind E, LAPPRO Steering Committee (2015) Short-term results after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 67:660–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Willis DL, Gonzalgo ML, Brotzman M, Feng Z, Trock B, Su LM (2012) Comparison of outcomes between pure laparoscopic vs robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a study of comparative effectiveness based upon validated quality of life outcomes. BJU Int 109:898–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, Dunglison N, Carter R, Williams S, Payton DJ, Perry-Keene J, Lavin MF, Gardiner RA (2016) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 388:1057–1066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR (2005) Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 96:39–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kasraeian A, Barret E, Chan J, Sanchez-Salas R, Validire P, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Galiano M, Vallancien G (2011) Comparison of the rate, location and size of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 108:1174–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, Salomon L (2014) Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 65:610–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S, Ragni F, Poggio M, Fiori C (2013) Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63:606–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Schroeck FR, Sun L, Freedland SJ, Albala DM, Mouraviev V, Polascik TJ, Moul JW (2008) Comparison of prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing either radical retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 102:28–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wolanski P, Chabert C, Jones L, Mullavey T, Walsh S, Gianduzzo T (2012) Preliminary results of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) after fellowship training and experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). BJU Int 110:64–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Agreda F, Raventos C, Planas J, Trilla E, Morote J (2014) Comparison of the initial robot-assisted radical prostatectomy results with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Arch Esp Urol 67:185–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Papachristos A, Basto M, Te Marvelde L, Moon D (2015) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: an Australian single-surgeon series. ANZ J Surg 85:154–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Park J, Yoo DS, Song C, Park S, Park S, Kim SC, Cho Y, Ahn H (2014) Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience. World J Urol 32:193–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Philippou P, Waine E, Rowe E (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open: comparison of the learning curve of a single surgeon. J Endourol 26:1002–1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Punnen S, Meng MV, Cooperberg MR, Greene KL, Cowan JE, Carroll PR (2013) How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer? BJU Int 112:E314–E320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G (2007) A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol 178:478–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Hakimi AA, Blitstein J, Feder M, Shapiro E, Ghavamian R (2009) Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. Urology 73:119–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Shapiro EY, Scarberry K, Patel T, Bergman A, Ahn JJ, Sahi N, RoyChoudhury A, Deutch I, McKiernan JM, Benson MC, Badani KK (2014) Comparison of robot-assisted and open retropubic radical prostatectomy for risk of biochemical progression in men with positive surgical margins. J Endourol 28:208–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Suh YS, Jang HJ, Song W, Lee HW, Kim HS, Jeon HG, Jeong BC, Seo SI, Jeon SS, Choi HY, Lee HM (2014) Location of positive surgical margin and its association with biochemical recurrence rate do not differ significantly in four different types of radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol 55:802–807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Trabulsi EJ, Zola JC, Colon-Herdman A, Heckman JE, Gomella LG, Lallas CD (2011) Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: transition from pure laparoscopic to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Arch Esp Urol 64:823–829

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Iseki R, Ohori M, Hatano T, Tachibana M (2012) Urinary incontinence in early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy-comparison with radical retropubic prostatectomy. Hinyokika Kiyo 58:409–414

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Koo KC, Tuliao P, Yoon YE, Chung BH, Hong SJ, Yang SC, Rha KH (2014) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Korean population: a 5-year propensity-score matched comparative analysis versus open radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 21:781–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 20:312–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, Vale L, Ramsay C, Pickard R (2013) Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int 112:798–812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Seo H-J, Lee NR, Son SK, Kim DK, Rha KH, Lee SH (2016) Comparison of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Yonsei Med J 57:1165–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Patel VR, Shariat SF, Tewari AK, Van Poppel H, Zattoni F, Montorsi F, Mottrie A, Rosen RC, Wilson TG (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:382–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Close A, Robertson C, Rushton S, Shirley M, Vale L, Ramsay C, Pickard R (2013) Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Eur Urol 64:361–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was obtained for carrying out this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, College of Medicine and Medical Sciences, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain

    Kannan Sridharan

  2. College of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Fiji National University, Suva, Fiji

    Gowri Sivaramakrishnan

Authors
  1. Kannan Sridharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gowri Sivaramakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kannan Sridharan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

KS declares no conflict of interest and GS declares no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

There is no role of informed consent as human participants were not involved in this study.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sridharan, K., Sivaramakrishnan, G. Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis. J Robotic Surg 12, 633–639 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0791-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0791-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation