Dirie Najib Isse, Pokhrel Gaurab, Guan Wei, Mumin Mukhtar Adan, Yang Jun, Masau Jackson Ferdinand, Hu Henglong, Wang Shaogang
Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.
Asian J Urol. 2019 Apr;6(2):174-182. doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2018.02.001. Epub 2018 Feb 9.
To evaluate the efficiency, safety and clinical outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) in comparison with the standard RARP.
A systematic search from Web of Science, PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was performed using the terms "Retzius-sparing", "Bocciardi approach" and "robot-assisted radical prostatectomy". Video articles and abstract papers for academic conferences were excluded. Meta-analysis of interested outcomes such as positive surgical margins (PSMs) and continence recovery was undertaken. A comprehensive literature review of all studies regarding Retzius-sparing (RS) approach was conducted and summarized.
From 2010 to 2017, 11 original articles about RS-RARP approach were retrieved. Of that, only four studies comparing the RS-RARP approach to the conventional RARP were comparable for meta-analysis. Faster overall continence recovery within 1 month after the surgery was noted in the RS group (61% 43%; = 0.004). PSMs of pT2 and pT3 stages were not significantly different between the groups (10.0% 7.4%; = 0.39 and 13.1% 9.5%, = 0.56, respectively). Of all the studies, only one reported sexual recovery outcomes after RS treatment in which 40% of the participants achieved sexual intercourse within the first month.
Though more technically demanding than the conventional RARP, the RS technique is a safe and feasible approach. This meta-analysis and literature review indicates that RS technique, as opposed to the conventional approach, is associated with a faster continence recovery while PSMs were comparable between the two groups. The limitations of observational studies and the small data in our meta-analysis may prevent an ultimate conclusion. Future well-designed RCTs are needed to validate and confirm our findings.
与标准机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RARP)相比,评估保留耻骨后间隙机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(RS-RARP)的有效性、安全性及临床结局。
利用“保留耻骨后间隙”“博恰迪入路”和“机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术”等检索词,对Web of Science、PubMed、EMBase、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌学术进行系统检索。排除学术会议的视频文章和摘要论文。对阳性手术切缘(PSM)和控尿恢复等感兴趣的结局进行荟萃分析。对所有关于保留耻骨后间隙(RS)入路的研究进行全面的文献综述并总结。
2010年至2017年,检索到11篇关于RS-RARP入路的原创文章。其中,只有4项将RS-RARP入路与传统RARP进行比较的研究可用于荟萃分析。RS组术后1个月内总体控尿恢复更快(61%对43%;P = 0.004)。两组pT2和pT3期的PSM无显著差异(分别为10.0%对7.4%;P = 0.39和13.1%对9.5%;P = 0.56)。在所有研究中,只有一项报告了RS治疗后的性功能恢复结局,其中40%的参与者在第一个月内实现了性交。
尽管RS技术比传统RARP技术要求更高,但它是一种安全可行的方法。这项荟萃分析和文献综述表明,与传统方法相比,RS技术可使控尿恢复更快,而两组的PSM相当。观察性研究的局限性以及我们荟萃分析中的小样本数据可能无法得出最终结论。未来需要设计良好的随机对照试验来验证和证实我们的发现。