Suppr超能文献

保留耻骨前列腺韧带的机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术与传统机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.

Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, UK.

出版信息

World J Urol. 2020 May;38(5):1123-1134. doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02798-4. Epub 2019 May 14.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy appears to have better continence rates when compared to conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy, however, concern with high positive surgical margin rates exist.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate evidence comparing functional and oncological outcomes of retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy and conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The systematic review was performed in accordance with the Cochrane guidelines and the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). Bibliographic databases searched were PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane central register of controlled trials-CENTRAL (in The Cochrane library-issue 1, 2018). We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The search retrieved 137 references through electronic searches of various databases. Six were included in the review. RS-RALP was associated with better early continence rates (≤ 1 month) (moderate quality evidence) (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.27, 2.32, p 0.0005) and at 3 months (low quality evidence) (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03, 1.88, p 0.03). Time to continence recovery, number of pads used and pad weight are better with RS-RALP. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter 6 and 12 months continence rates. Based on very low quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter T2 positive margin rates (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.91, 3.06, p 0.10) and T3 positive margin rates (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.68, 1.70, p = 0.75). Short-term biochemical free survival appears to be similar between the two approaches. Based on low-quality evidence, RS-RALP did not alter overall and major complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

RS-RARP appears to have earlier continence recovery when compared to Con-RARP which does not come at a significant oncologic cost. Whilst there was a trend towards higher PSM rates with RS-RALP, this did not achieve statistical significance. Furthermore this trend appeared to be less pronounced with T3 disease, where the PSM rates are almost similar.

摘要

背景

与传统的机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术相比,保留耻骨后间隙的机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术似乎具有更好的控尿率,但存在高切缘阳性率的担忧。

目的

系统评价比较保留耻骨后间隙的机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术和传统机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的功能和肿瘤学结果的证据。

证据获取

系统评价按照 Cochrane 指南和系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)进行。检索的文献数据库包括 PubMed/MEDLINE、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库-CENTRAL(在 Cochrane 图书馆-第 1 期,2018 年)。我们使用 GRADE 方法评估证据质量。

证据综合

通过对各种数据库的电子搜索,检索到 137 篇参考文献。其中 6 篇被纳入综述。RS-RALP 与早期控尿率(≤1 个月)(中质量证据)(RR 1.72,95%CI 1.27,2.32,p 0.0005)和 3 个月(低质量证据)(RR 1.39,95%CI 1.03,1.88,p 0.03)更好相关。RS-RALP 能更好地恢复控尿功能,减少使用尿垫的数量和减轻尿垫的重量。基于极低质量的证据,RS-RALP 并没有改变 6 个月和 12 个月的控尿率。基于极低质量的证据,RS-RALP 并没有改变 T2 阳性切缘率(RR 1.67,95%CI 0.91,3.06,p 0.10)和 T3 阳性切缘率(RR 1.08,95%CI 0.68,1.70,p=0.75)。两种方法的短期生化无复发生存率似乎相似。基于低质量证据,RS-RALP 并没有改变总体和主要并发症的发生率。

结论

与 Con-RARP 相比,RS-RARP 似乎具有更早的控尿恢复,而在肿瘤学方面没有显著的代价。虽然 RS-RALP 的 PSM 率有上升趋势,但没有达到统计学意义。此外,这种趋势在 T3 疾病中似乎不那么明显,PSM 率几乎相似。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验