Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Robotic surgery has been developed with an attempt to reduce the difficulty of complex laparoscopic procedures. The goal of this study was to perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) through all relevant comparative studies.

Methods

A literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (including prospective and retrospective studies) comparing perioperative, functional, or oncologic outcomes of both LRP and RARP, and meta-analysis was applied using the Review Manager V5.3 software.

Results

Twenty-four studies were identified in the literature search, including 2 RCTs, 7 prospective studies, and 15 retrospective studies. LRP and RARP showed similarity in the operative time, catheterization duration, in-hospital stay, and overall complication rate. However, blood loss [mean difference (MD) 75.94; p = 0.03] and transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) 2.08; p = 0.001] were lower in RARP. Moreover, RARP was associated with significantly improved outcomes for continence and potency rates to those of LRP at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate (OR 0.88; p = 0.03) was lower in LRP. However, there was no significant differences in ≤pT2 (OR 0.94; p = 0.69) and ≥pT3 (OR 0.94; p = 0.73) PSM rates between LRP and RARP. Additionally, LRP and RARP owned similar biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (OR 1.15; p = 0.90).

Conclusions

RARP was associated with lower blood loss and transfusion rate and much greater functional outcomes in contrast to LRP. However, there was no conclusive evidence that RARP was advantaged in terms of perioperative (except for blood loss and transfusion rate) and oncologic outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, Mason M, Matveev V, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, Mottet N, European Association of Urology (2014) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 65:124–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2005) Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 66:83–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G (1999) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 36:14–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Robertson C, Close A, Fraser C, Gurung T, Jia X, Sharma P, Vale L, Ramsay C, Pickard R (2013) Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. BJU Int 112:798–812

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C (2011) Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 8:1503–1512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S, Ragni F, Poggio M, Fiori C (2013) Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63:606–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van Poppel H (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 20:312–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539–1558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Asawabharuj K, Ramart P, Nualyong C, Leewansangtong S, Srinualnad S, Taweemonkongsap T, Chaiyaprasithi B, Amornvesukit T, Jitpraphai S, Soontrapa S (2014) Comparison of urinary continence outcome between robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Med Assoc Thai 97:393–398

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Asimakopoulos AD, Miano R, Di Lorenzo N, Spera E, Vespasiani G, Mugnier C (2013) Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon. Surg Endosc 27:4297–4304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berge V, Berg RE, Hoff JR, Wessel N, Diep LM, Karlsen SJ, Eri LM (2013) A prospective study of transition from laparoscopic to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: quality of life outcomes after 36-month follow-up. Urology 81:781–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hakimi AA, Blitstein J, Feder M, Shapiro E, Ghavamian R (2009) Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. Urology 73:119–123

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG, Kawachi MH, Ramin SA, Lau C, Crocitto LE (2006) Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 175:541–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR (2005) Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 96:39–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kasraeian A, Barret E, Chan J, Sanchez-Salas R, Validire P, Cathelineau X, Rozet F, Galiano M, Vallancien G (2011) Comparison of the rate, location and size of positive surgical margins after laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 108:1174–1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Koutlidis N, Mourey E, Champigneulle J, Mangin P, Cormier L (2012) Robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: what is the optimal procedure for the surgical margins? A single center experience. Int J Urol 19:1076–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ku JY, Ha HK (2015) Learning curve of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for a single experienced surgeon: comparison with simultaneous laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Mens Health 33:30–35

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, Vallancien G (2002) Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168:945–949

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Papachristos A, Basto M, Te Marvelde L, Moon D (2015) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: an Australian single-surgeon series. ANZ J Surg 85:154–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Park JW, Won Lee H, Kim W, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Choi HY, Seo SI (2011) Comparative assessment of a single surgeon’s series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted. J Endourol 25:597–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Park B, Kim W, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Choi HY, Seo SI (2013) Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of pure versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon. Scand J Urol 47:10–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Paul A, Gillion N, Salomon L, Allory Y, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Yiou R, Abbou CC, de la Taille A (2009) Is robot assistance affecting operating room time compared with pure retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? J Endourol 23:939–943

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, Salomon L (2014) Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 65:610–619

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G, Harmon J, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G (2007) A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J Urol 178:478–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stolzenburg JU, Qazi HA, Holze S, Mende M, Nicolaus M, Franz T, Ho Thi P, Dietel A, Liatsikos E, Do M (2013) Evaluating the learning curve of experienced laparoscopic surgeons in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 27:80–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tozawa K, Yasui T, Umemoto Y, Mizuno K, Okada A, Kawai N, Takahashi S, Kohri K (2014) Pitfalls of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparison of positive surgical margins between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. Int J Urol 21:976–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Trabulsi EJ, Linden RA, Gomella LG, McGinnis DE, Strup SE, Lallas CD (2008) The addition of robotic surgery to an established laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program: effect on positive surgical margins. Can J Urol 15:3994–3999

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Trabulsi EJ, Zola JC, Gomella LG, Lallas CD (2010) Transition from pure laparoscopic to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon institutional evolution. Urol Oncol 28:81–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Willis DL, Gonzalgo ML, Brotzman M, Feng Z, Trock B, Su LM (2012) Comparison of outcomes between pure laparoscopic vs robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a study of comparative effectiveness based upon validated quality of life outcomes. BJU Int 109:898–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wolanski P, Chabert C, Jones L, Mullavey T, Walsh S, Gianduzzo T (2012) Preliminary results of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) after fellowship training and experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). BJU Int 110(Suppl 4):64–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Descazeaud A, Peyromaure M, Zerbib M (2007) Will robotic surgery become the gold standard for radical prostatectomy? Eur Urol 51:9–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Shariat SF, Stolzenburg JU, Van Poppel H, Zattoni F, Montorsi F, Mottrie A, Wilson TG (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:431–452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Agarwal PK, Sammon J, Bhandari A, Dabaja A, Diaz M, Dusik-Fenton S, Satyanarayana R, Simone A, Trinh QD, Baize B, Menon M (2011) Safety profile of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a standardized report of complications in 3317 patients. Eur Urol 59:684–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schmitges J, Trinh QD, Abdollah F, Sun M, Bianchi M, Budaus L, Zorn K, Perotte P, Schlomm T, Haese A, Montorsi F, Menon M, Graefen M, Karakiewicz PI (2011) A population-based analysis of temporal perioperative complication rates after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 60:564–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Allan C, Ilic D (2015) Laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer: a systematic review. Urol Int. doi:10.1159/000435861

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel VR, Stolzenburg JU, Van der Poel H, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Mottrie A (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Meeks JJ, Eastham JA (2013) Radical prostatectomy: positive surgical margins matter. Urol Oncol 31:974–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, Epstein J, Graefen M, Montironi R, Touijer K (2014) Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol 65:303–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel VR (2010) Predictive factors for positive surgical margins and their locations after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 57:1022–1029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Patel VR, Shariat SF, Tewari AK, Van Poppel H, Zattoni F, Montorsi F, Mottrie A, Rosen RC, Wilson TG (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:382–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Karavitakis M, Ahmed HU, Abel PD, Hazell S, Winkler MH (2012) Margin status after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and the index lesion: implications for preoperative evaluation of tumor focality in prostate cancer. J Endourol 26:503–508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Murphy DG, Bjartell A, Ficarra V, Graefen M, Haese A, Montironi R, Montorsi F, Moul JW, Novara G, Sauter G, Sulser T, van der Poel H (2010) Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. Eur Urol 57:735–746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Urology, Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China

      Xing Huang, Lei Wang, Xinmin Zheng & Xinghuan Wang

    Authors
    1. Xing Huang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Lei Wang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Xinmin Zheng
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Xinghuan Wang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Xinghuan Wang.

    Ethics declarations

    Disclosures

    Xing Huang, Lei Wang, Xinmin Zheng, and Xinghuan Wang have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclosure.

    Additional information

    Xing Huang and Lei Wang have contributed equally to this paper.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Huang, X., Wang, L., Zheng, X. et al. Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31, 1045–1060 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5125-1

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5125-1

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation