Comparison of functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Comparative studies evaluating urinary continence recovery after retropubic radical prostatectomy or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Quality	Case, n	Ref.	Country	Age (yr)	BMI (kg/m2)	Prostate vol-ume (mL, g)	Gleason sc-ore (biopsy)	PSA (ng/mL)	Study design	Continence definition	Data collection	Loss of follow-up (N/Y, %)	Urinary continence recovery, %(n)
													6 mo	12 mo
3/2/2(H)	RRP, 70	Anastasiadis et al[20], 2003	France	64.8 ± 6.4	-	-	6.1 ± 1.1	11.2 ± 9.7	Prospective	0 pad	Nonvalidated	Y, > 20%	43.3 (16/37)	77.7 (26/33)
	LRP, 230			64.1 ± 6.4			5.8 ± 1.2	10.7 ± 8.8			questionnaire		59.2a (67/113)	89.0 (94/106)
2/2/3(H)	RRP, 77	Roumeguere et al[21], 2003	Belgium	63.9 ± 5.5	-	42.0 ± 20.4	5.4 ± 1.5	10.5 ± 11.5	Prospective	0 pad	Interview	Y, > 20%	62.5 (40/64)	83.9 (47/56)
	LRP, 85			62.5 ± 6.0		37.3 ± 15.6	5.4 ± 1.5	8.6 ± 5.2					50.6 (37/73)	80.7 (42/52)
3/1/3(H)	RRP, 41	Remzi et al[22], 2005	Austria	60 ± 14	-	44 ± 18	4.7 ± 1.5	6.9 ± 4.4	Prospective	0 pad	Physician	N	-	80.3 (33/41)
	(a)tLRP, 39			61 ± 11		37 ± 16	5.1 ± 1.2	5.5 ± 3.7						84.6 (33/39)
	(b)eLRP, 41			59 ± 12		32 ± 14	5.5 ± 1.3	8.1 ± 6.1						87.8 (36/41)
3/2/3(H)	RRP, 75	Wagner et al[23], 2007	United States	59 ± 6.9	29 ± 4.5	-	-	8.1 ± 6.27	Prospective	0 pad	EPIC	Y, < 20%	-	47.0 (31/66)
	LRP, 75			58 ± 6.9	27 ± 3.0			6.2 ± 4.22						64.0a (43/67)
3/2/2(H)	RRP, 222	Touijer et al[24], 2008	United States	59 (54, 64)	-	-	-	5.3 (4.1, 7.3)	Prospective	0-1 safety	Institutional	N	-	75.0a (167/222)
	LRP, 193			60 (55, 65)				5.3 (4.0, 7.5)		pad	questionnaire			48.0 (93/193)
3/2/3(H)	RRP, 150	Greco et al[25], 2009	Italy	61.5 (49-74)	29 (25-33)	-	5 (3-7)	6.95 (3.4-10)	Prospective	0 pad	Validated	N	76.0 (114/150)	91.0 (137/150)
	LRP, 150			60.5 (45-76)	32 (26-38)		5 (3-7)	6.3 (2.4-10)			questionnaire		89.3 (134/150)	97.0 (146/150)
3/2/2(H)	RRP, 102	Dahl et al[26], 2009	United States	59.9	-	-	-	-	Prospective	0 pad	Validated	Y, > 20%	49.0 (38/78)	49.0 (35/72)
	LRP, 104			59.5							questionnaire		42.0 (31/74)	53.0 (41/78)
2/2/2(M)	RRP, 49	Egawa et al[27], 2003	Japan	67.0 ± 0.7	-	-	6.0 ± 0.2	8.3 ± 1.4	Retrospective	0 pad	Interview	Y, > 20%	84.1a (37/44)	92.9a (39/42)
	LRP, 34			68.0 ± 0.9			5.0 ± 0.2	6.6 ± 0.6					46.9 (15/32)	60.0 (12/20)
3/1/2(M)	RRP, 50	Artibani et al[28], 2003	Italy	64.28 ± 6.6	-	-	5.7 ± 1.2	11 ± 9	Retrospective	0 pad	Nonvalidated	Y, > 20%	-	64.0 (9/14)
	LRP, 71			63.14 ± 5.8			5.8 ± 1.3	15.7 ± 17			questionnaire			40.0 (8/20)
4/2/2(H)	RRP, 70	Ghavamian et al[29], 2006	United States	57.8 ± 7.3	28.1	53.2 (19-135)	6.7 ± 1.3	9.9 ± 7.1	Retrospective	0 pad	Physician	Y, < 20%	71.4 (50/70)	87.6 (57/65)
	LRP, 70			60.8 ± 6.1	27.5	40.8 (20-114)	6.4 ± 0.8	7.6 ± 8.0					70.0 (49/70)	90.0 (63/70)
4/2/2(H)	RRP, 37	Takenaka et al[30], 2008	Japan	67.1 ± 6.0	23.5 ± 3.0	30.1 ± 26.9	6.9 ± 1.0	14.7 ± 11.9	Retrospective	0 pad	Nonvalidated	N	77.0 (28/37)	91.0 (34/37)
	LRP, 109			66.1 ± 6.3	23.8 ± 2.5	32.2 ± 16.5	6.6 ± 0.7	11.0 ± 8.4			questionnaire		65.0 (71/109)	77.0 (84/109)
2/2/3(H)	RRP, 188	Simforoosh et al[31], 2009	Iran	62.1 (45-74)	-	-	-	13.6	Retrospective	0 pad	Physician	N	91.5 (172/188)	95.2 (179/188)
	LRP, 136			62.5 (45-76)				12.7					89.0 (121/136)	96.3 (131/136)
2/1/1(M)	RRP, 128	Springer et al[32], 2013	Germany	57.2 ± 7.4	28.3 ± 2.6	-	-	3.1 ± 1.7	Retrospective	0 pad	Validated	N	73.4 (94/128)	86.4 (111/128)
	LRP, 125			56.8 ± 6.7	27.7 ± 3.8			3.2 ± 1.4			questionnaire		86.4 (108/125)a	96.8a (121/125)
3/2/2(H)	RRP, 168	Magheli et al[33], 2014	Germany	62.6 ± 5.4	-	58 ± 22	-	10.1 ± 11.9	Retrospective	0-1 safety	Validated	Y, > 20%	-	83.2 (99/119)
	LRP, 171			62.3 ± 5.7		53 ± 20		9.2 ± 6.9		pad	questionnaire			82.8 (96/116)

^aP < 0.05. RRP: Retropubic radical prostatectomy; LRP: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; (a)tLRP: Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical; EPIC: Expanded prostate cancer index composite.