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

Table 3 Comparative studies evaluating urinary continence recovery after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Quality	Case, n	Author, yr	Country	Age (yr)	BMI(kg/m2)	Prostate vol-ume (mL,g)	Gleason sco-re (biopsy)	PSA (ng/mL)	Studydesign	Continence definition	Data collection	Loss of follow-up (N/Y, %)	Urinary continence recovery, %(n)
													6 mo	12 mo
High	LRP, 60	Asimakopoulos et al[44], 2011	Italy	61.1 ± 5.1	26.3 ± 2.2	-	-	7.37 (1.5-9.15)	RCT	0 pad	ICS-MSF	N	75.0 (45/60)	83.0 (50/60)
	RARP, 52			59.6 ± 5.4	25.8 ± 2.6			8.9 (5.8-9.2)					88.0 (46/52)	94.0 (49/52)
High	LRP, 60	Porpiglia et al[45], 2012	Italy	64.7 ± 5.9	26.8 ± 2.9	37.7 ± 14.1	-	8.3 ± 6.5	RCT	0-1 pad	EPIC	N	73.3 (44/60)	83.3 (50/60)
	RARP, 60			63.9 ± 6.7	26.2 ± 2.5	36.2 ± 12.6		6.9 ± 4.2					88.3a (53/60)	95.0a (57/60)
3/1/3(H)	LRP, 1377	Ploussard et al[46], 2012	France	62.7	26.6	-	-	9.8	Prospective	0 pad	Validated	N	58.9 (811/1377)	68.5 (943/1377)
	RARP, 1009			62.7	26.5			9.2			questionnaire		72.0a (726/1009)	75.4 (761/1009)
2/1/2(M)	LRP, 50	Joseph et al[47], 2005	United Kingdom	61.8 ± 1.6	-	-	6 ± 0.14	6.0 ± 0.83	Retrospective	0 pad	Interview	N	92.0 (46/50)	-
	RARP, 50			59.6 ± 1.6			6 ± 0.15	7.3 ± 1.2					90.0 (45/50)
2/1/2(M)	LRP, 70	Caballero et al[39], 2008	Spain	66.5 (62-69)	-	41 (30.15-52)	-	9.66 (7-16.6)	Retrospective	0 pad	Unspecified	Y, < 20%	36.4 (24/66)	-
	RARP, 60			56 (56-65.25)		29.5 (23-40)		7 (5.7-10)					60.0 (30/50)
3/1/3(H)	LRP, 31	Lee et al[48], 2009	South Korea	63.0 ± 8.52	25.2 ± 2.59	37.4 ± 13.05	6.5 ± 1.23	11.7 ± 13.72	Retrospective	0-1 safety	Institutional	N	80.6 (25/31)	-
	RARP, 21			64.6 ± 6.79	25.5 ± 2.64	39.9 ± 15.54	6.6 ± 0.97	8.1 ± 7.01		pad	questionnaire		81.0 (17/21)
3/1/2(M)	LRP, 60	Cho et al[49], 2009	South Korea	66.5 (57-75)	23.65 (18.1-28.4)	39.7 (19-72)	6.81 (5-9)	11.04 (2.72-36.6)	Retrospective	0-1 safety	Interview	N	71.7 (43/60)	100.0 (60/60)
	RARP, 60			66.3 (50-77)	24.61 (19.9-26.3)	36.6 (22-92.8)	6.83 (5-8)	9.98 (2.91-26.3)		pad			93.3 (56/60)	100.0 (60/60)
4/2/3(H)	LRP, 75	Hakimi et al[50], 2009	United States	59.6 (43-72)	-	-	-	7.5	Retrospective	0 pad	IPSS	N	65.3 (49/75)	89.3 (67/75)
	RARP, 75			59.8 (42-71)				8.4					74.7 (56/75)	93.3 (70/75)
4/2/2(H)	LRP, 45	Trabulsi et al[51], 2010	United States	58.1 (43-74)	-	-	-	6.2	Retrospective	0-1 safety	Validated	N	71.0 (32/45)	82.0 (37/45)
	RARP, 205			59.9 (42-76)				6.4		pad	questionnaire		91.0a (187/205)	94.0a (193/205)
3/2/2(H)	LRP, 161	Willis et al[52], 2011	United States	58.0 ± 6.7	27.0 ± 3.4	35.2 ± 10.1	-	5.7 ± 2.9	Retrospective	0 pad	Validated	Y, > 20%	55.0 (64/117)	72.0 (84/116)
	RARP, 121			58.1 ± 6.3	26.7 ± 3.3	41.5 ± 15.2		5.0 ± 2.2			questionnaire		66.0 (50/76)	75.0 (33/44)
3/1/2(M)	LRP, 62	Park et al[53], 2011	South Korea	65.7 (38-77)	24.6 (19.4-31.4)	30.1 (12.0-56.0)	-	9.14 (2.65-30.77)	Retrospective	0-1 safety	Interview	N	76.3 (47/62)	95.0 (59/62)
	RARP, 44			62.7 (46-71)	26.0 (19.7-39.4)	32.9 (15.5-66.8)		6.32 (1.86-29.5)		pad			93.5 (41/44)	94.4 (42/44)
3/2/3(H)	LRP, 144	Park et al[54], 2013	South Korea	67 (38-77)	24.2 (17.2-31.4)	28.8 (12.0-74.0)	-	5.84 (0.08-41.26)	Retrospective	0 pad	Interview	N	65.5 (94/144)	78.1 (112/144)
	RARP, 183			63 (44-75)	24.7 (16.4-39.4)	30.3 (15.5-82.8)		4.98 (0.05-51.46)					83.5a (153/183)	87.4 (160/183)

^aP < 0.05. LRP: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; RARP: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; IPSS: International prostate symptom score; EPIC: Expanded prostate cancer index composite; ICS-MSF: International continence society-male short form questionnaire.