Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review

Context: The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study selection process for SR means that a lot of information can be excluded, leading to a very specific clinical scenario that...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tomás Bernardo Costa Moretti, Luís Alberto Magna, Leonardo Oliveira Reis
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2022-10-01
Series:European Urology Open Science
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666168322008850
_version_ 1798001543906066432
author Tomás Bernardo Costa Moretti
Luís Alberto Magna
Leonardo Oliveira Reis
author_facet Tomás Bernardo Costa Moretti
Luís Alberto Magna
Leonardo Oliveira Reis
author_sort Tomás Bernardo Costa Moretti
collection DOAJ
description Context: The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study selection process for SR means that a lot of information can be excluded, leading to a very specific clinical scenario that is often unrepresentative of real life. Our new reverse SR methodology generates a heterogeneous population database that covers a wide range of clinical scenarios. Objective: To compare perioperative surgical results and complications for open retropubic RP (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) in a reverse SR. Evidence acquisition: Eight databases were searched for SRs on RRP, LRP, or RARP between 2000 and 2020 (80 SRs). All references used in these SRs were captured for analysis (1724 articles). Perioperative outcomes and complications were compared among the RRP, LRP, and RARP approaches. Evidence synthesis: We identified 559 (32.4%) reports on RRP, 413 (23.9%) on LRP, and 752 (43.7%) on RARP, involving 1 353 485 patients overall. RARP showed a significantly higher annual volume of surgery per surgeon (AVSS) in comparison to RRP and LRP (mean 64.29, 43.26, and 41.47, respectively), a higher percentage of low-risk patients (prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, Gleason <7, stage <cT2), and a lower rate of lymphadenectomy, culminating in a lower complication rate (12.3% for RARP, 16.3% for LRP, 20.2% for RRP). Among all outcomes, only AVSS was significantly correlated with complication rates. An AVSS of 30, 95 and 95 surgeries/yr was required for RARP, LRP, and RRP, respectively, to obtain a complication rate of 12.3% (average for RARP). RARP showed better performance for all perioperative variables studied except for operative time (operative time: 199.8 vs 214.9 vs 169.5 min; estimated blood loss: 228.2 vs 408.0 vs 852.1 ml; blood transfusion rate: 2.8% vs 6.5% vs 19.8%; length of stay: 2.9 vs 5.7 vs 6.1 d; catheter time: 7.8 vs 8.5 vs 11.0 d for RARP vs LRP vs RRP). Conclusions: Our reverse SR involved a wide real-life representative sample and reference values established in the literature and revealed that minimally invasive surgery had the best perioperative and complication results, especially RARP, which was associated with less complex cases, higher annual surgeon volume, and greater performance. Patient summary: We used a wide sample representative of real-life surgical practice and reference values established in the literature for three techniques for removal of the prostate to guide patients and physicians in deciding the best surgical treatment for prostate cancer according to availability.
first_indexed 2024-04-11T11:37:55Z
format Article
id doaj.art-71a40072442a44828be10e971a45132c
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2666-1683
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-11T11:37:55Z
publishDate 2022-10-01
publisher Elsevier
record_format Article
series European Urology Open Science
spelling doaj.art-71a40072442a44828be10e971a45132c2022-12-22T04:25:55ZengElsevierEuropean Urology Open Science2666-16832022-10-0144150161Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic ReviewTomás Bernardo Costa Moretti0Luís Alberto Magna1Leonardo Oliveira Reis2Doctoral Program in Medical Pathophysiology and UroScience, Division of Urology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas, Campinas, BrazilDepartment of Medical Genetics, State University of Campinas, Campinas, BrazilDoctoral Program in Medical Pathophysiology and UroScience, Division of Urology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil; Center for Life Sciences, Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil; Corresponding author. Center for Life Sciences, Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas, R. John Boyd Dunlop s/n, Campinas, São Paulo 13060-904, Brazil. Fax: +55 19 35217481.Context: The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study selection process for SR means that a lot of information can be excluded, leading to a very specific clinical scenario that is often unrepresentative of real life. Our new reverse SR methodology generates a heterogeneous population database that covers a wide range of clinical scenarios. Objective: To compare perioperative surgical results and complications for open retropubic RP (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) in a reverse SR. Evidence acquisition: Eight databases were searched for SRs on RRP, LRP, or RARP between 2000 and 2020 (80 SRs). All references used in these SRs were captured for analysis (1724 articles). Perioperative outcomes and complications were compared among the RRP, LRP, and RARP approaches. Evidence synthesis: We identified 559 (32.4%) reports on RRP, 413 (23.9%) on LRP, and 752 (43.7%) on RARP, involving 1 353 485 patients overall. RARP showed a significantly higher annual volume of surgery per surgeon (AVSS) in comparison to RRP and LRP (mean 64.29, 43.26, and 41.47, respectively), a higher percentage of low-risk patients (prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, Gleason <7, stage <cT2), and a lower rate of lymphadenectomy, culminating in a lower complication rate (12.3% for RARP, 16.3% for LRP, 20.2% for RRP). Among all outcomes, only AVSS was significantly correlated with complication rates. An AVSS of 30, 95 and 95 surgeries/yr was required for RARP, LRP, and RRP, respectively, to obtain a complication rate of 12.3% (average for RARP). RARP showed better performance for all perioperative variables studied except for operative time (operative time: 199.8 vs 214.9 vs 169.5 min; estimated blood loss: 228.2 vs 408.0 vs 852.1 ml; blood transfusion rate: 2.8% vs 6.5% vs 19.8%; length of stay: 2.9 vs 5.7 vs 6.1 d; catheter time: 7.8 vs 8.5 vs 11.0 d for RARP vs LRP vs RRP). Conclusions: Our reverse SR involved a wide real-life representative sample and reference values established in the literature and revealed that minimally invasive surgery had the best perioperative and complication results, especially RARP, which was associated with less complex cases, higher annual surgeon volume, and greater performance. Patient summary: We used a wide sample representative of real-life surgical practice and reference values established in the literature for three techniques for removal of the prostate to guide patients and physicians in deciding the best surgical treatment for prostate cancer according to availability.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666168322008850Laparoscopic surgeryOpen surgeryRobot-assisted surgeryRadical prostatectomyMethodologyReverse systematic review
spellingShingle Tomás Bernardo Costa Moretti
Luís Alberto Magna
Leonardo Oliveira Reis
Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review
European Urology Open Science
Laparoscopic surgery
Open surgery
Robot-assisted surgery
Radical prostatectomy
Methodology
Reverse systematic review
title Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review
title_full Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review
title_fullStr Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review
title_short Surgical Results and Complications for Open, Laparoscopic, and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Reverse Systematic Review
title_sort surgical results and complications for open laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy a reverse systematic review
topic Laparoscopic surgery
Open surgery
Robot-assisted surgery
Radical prostatectomy
Methodology
Reverse systematic review
url http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666168322008850
work_keys_str_mv AT tomasbernardocostamoretti surgicalresultsandcomplicationsforopenlaparoscopicandrobotassistedradicalprostatectomyareversesystematicreview
AT luisalbertomagna surgicalresultsandcomplicationsforopenlaparoscopicandrobotassistedradicalprostatectomyareversesystematicreview
AT leonardooliveirareis surgicalresultsandcomplicationsforopenlaparoscopicandrobotassistedradicalprostatectomyareversesystematicreview