Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2025
Impact of transperitoneal anterior, retzius-sparing, extraperitoneal, transvesical and perineal approaches on urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ficarra Vincenzo, Rossanese Marta, Ilaria Romito, Giannarini Gianluca, Mottrie Alexandre, Thomas Christian, Chun Felix, Galfano Antonio, Abdollah Firas, Di Trapani Ettore
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence significantly impacts on health-related quality of life of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. In the last decades, several approaches (extraperitoneal, Retzius-sparing (RS), perineal and, transvesical) for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have proposed with the aim to improve functional outcomes in comparison with transperitoneal, anterior ones.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in English language, in the last ten years, comparing the different approaches used to perform RARP. We included only studies reporting urinary continence rates at different follow-up time points. From each eligible study, we extracted the number of analyzed patients; the study design; the continence definition; and, when available, immediate, 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-mo urinary continence rates. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom, UK). The Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the generic inverse variance. A p value of <0.05 was set as significance level when comparing studies.
RESULTS: The meta-analyses of studies comparing anterior, transperitoneal RARP and RS-RARP in terms of immediate (OR = 3.73; 95% CI: 2.17-6.43; p < 0.0001), 1-mo (OR = 4.16; 95% CI: 2.68-6.48; p < 0.00001), 3-mo (OR 4.71; 95% CI: 3.70-6.00; p < 0.0001), 6-mo (OR 4.12; 95% CI: 2.95-5.75; p < 0.00001) and 12-mo (OR = 3.25; 95% CI: 1.76-5.99; p < 0.00001) urinary continence rates showed a statistically significant advantage in favor of RS approach. However, a sub-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials showed overlapping urinary continence rates between the two approaches at 6-mo (OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 0.90-4.42; p = 0.09) and 12-mo (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.43-4.31; p = 0.60) after surgery. The meta-analysis of studies comparing extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches showed that 6-mo urinary continence rates were overlapping between the two approaches (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.85-1.65; p = 0.32). The meta-analysis of studies comparing single-port (SP) and multi-port (MP) RARP showed comparable 6-mo urinary continence rates (OR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.65-1.33; p = 0.69).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of mainly low to moderate quality of evidence, the RS approach offers significant advantages compared to an anterior, transperitoneal, approach in terms of urinary continence recovery at different follow-up time points in patients who underwent MP-RARP. MP perineal and transvesical approaches need to be further tested and might be of interest in the setting of SP-RARP. Our meta-analysis showed comparable results between SP- and MP-RARP in terms of urinary continence rates.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in English language, in the last ten years, comparing the different approaches used to perform RARP. We included only studies reporting urinary continence rates at different follow-up time points. From each eligible study, we extracted the number of analyzed patients; the study design; the continence definition; and, when available, immediate, 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-mo urinary continence rates. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom, UK). The Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the generic inverse variance. A p value of <0.05 was set as significance level when comparing studies.
RESULTS: The meta-analyses of studies comparing anterior, transperitoneal RARP and RS-RARP in terms of immediate (OR = 3.73; 95% CI: 2.17-6.43; p < 0.0001), 1-mo (OR = 4.16; 95% CI: 2.68-6.48; p < 0.00001), 3-mo (OR 4.71; 95% CI: 3.70-6.00; p < 0.0001), 6-mo (OR 4.12; 95% CI: 2.95-5.75; p < 0.00001) and 12-mo (OR = 3.25; 95% CI: 1.76-5.99; p < 0.00001) urinary continence rates showed a statistically significant advantage in favor of RS approach. However, a sub-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials showed overlapping urinary continence rates between the two approaches at 6-mo (OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 0.90-4.42; p = 0.09) and 12-mo (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.43-4.31; p = 0.60) after surgery. The meta-analysis of studies comparing extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches showed that 6-mo urinary continence rates were overlapping between the two approaches (OR = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.85-1.65; p = 0.32). The meta-analysis of studies comparing single-port (SP) and multi-port (MP) RARP showed comparable 6-mo urinary continence rates (OR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.65-1.33; p = 0.69).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of mainly low to moderate quality of evidence, the RS approach offers significant advantages compared to an anterior, transperitoneal, approach in terms of urinary continence recovery at different follow-up time points in patients who underwent MP-RARP. MP perineal and transvesical approaches need to be further tested and might be of interest in the setting of SP-RARP. Our meta-analysis showed comparable results between SP- and MP-RARP in terms of urinary continence rates.