Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery

Table 3 Original studies reporting male urological function

Ref.	Males assessed independently of females	Functional scores applied	Control group	No. of cases examining male urological function	Follow up in months	Outcome summary
Kim et al[31]	No	Yes	Robot vs lap	30 rob vs 39 lap	1, 3, 6, 12	Urological function recovered faster in robotic group (3 mo vs 6 mo) IPSS change from baseline lower in robotic group at 3 mo (P = 0.036) Mean voiding volume deterioration lower in 3 and 6 mo in robotic group (P = 0.007, P = 0.049) Similar outcomes at 12 mo in both groups
Park et al[9]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	32 vs 32	3, 6, 12	IPSS scores elevated post-operatively in both groups At 12 mo IPSS change from baseline lower in robotic group but non-significant (P = 0.051)
Park et al[32]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	14 rob vs 15 lap	3, 6, 12	Deterioration of IPSS scores in 3 mo which recovered by 6 mo in both groups
D'Annibale et al[33]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	30 vs 30	1, 12	Deterioration of IPSS scores in 3 mo which recovered by 12 mo in both groups
Ozeki et al[18]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs open	15 rob vs 22 open	3, 6, 12	No statistical deterioration of IPSS scores in either group
Morelli et al[30]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	Not available	1, 6, 12	Voiding and incontinence worse 1 mo in both groups, incontinence recovered by 6-12 mo in both groups
Leung et al[5]	Yes	Yes	No control group	33	3	No significant male urological function deterioration
Luca et al[6]	Yes	Yes	No control group	38	1, 6, 12	No significant male urological function deterioration
Stănciulea et al[37]	No	Yes	No control group	78	Once b/n 6 and 12	No deterioration in IPSS scores but no data presentation in results
Hellan et al[34]	No	No	No control group	39	median F/U 13 mo	One patient (2.56%) developed bladder dysfunction post operatively
Park et al[39]	No	No	No control group	30	Not stated	No patients developed bladder dysfunction post operatively
Cho et al[35]	No	No	Robot vs lap	278 vs 278	1	Voiding dysfunction rate higher in the laparoscopic group (4.3% lap vs 0.7% rob; P = 0.012)

The following study characteristics are described: (1) whether male patients were assessed independently of female patients or not, in studies that this was not the case data from male and female patients was combined; (2) whether functional scores were used to assess urogenital outcomes or not; (3) the control group used in the study if applicable; (4) the number of cases examining male urological function; (4) the follow up periods in months; and (5) a brief summary of the study’s findings regarding male urological function. Robot: Robotic; lap: Laparoscopic; f/u: Follow up; IPSS: International Prostatic Symptoms Score.