World journal of urology · 2019
Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes-a meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Liao Hai, Duan Xi, Du Yong, Mou Xiaoxi, Hu Tinghui, Cai Tao, Liu Junbo, Cui Shu, Wu Tao
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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%).
CONCLUSION: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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%).
CONCLUSION: 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.