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

doi:10.13105/wjma.v2.i3.107

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 2, Issue 3

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (6325)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-9) series, Tables (1-12) series.

Item

Count

PDF

331

WORD

314

HTML

2894

Figures (1-9)

185

Tables (1-12)

277

Sum=4001

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1061

Download

1263

Sum=2324

Aug 26, 2014 (publication date) through Jul 23, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Meta-Analysis

ISSN

2308-3840

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Meta-Analysis

World J Meta-Anal. Aug 26, 2014; 2(3): 107-126
Published online Aug 26, 2014. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v2.i3.107

Table 6 Comparative studies evaluating potency recovery after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Quality	Case, n	Author, yr	Country	Age (yr)	BMI (kg/m²)	Prostate Volume (mL,g)	Gleason score (biopsy)	PSA (ng/mL)	Study design	Potency definition	Data collection	Loss of follow-up (N/Y, %)	Potency recovery (UNS/BNS), %(n)		Potency recovery (unclear NS), %(n)
Quality	Case, n	Author, yr	Country	Age (yr)	BMI (kg/m²)	Prostate Volume (mL,g)	Gleason score (biopsy)	PSA (ng/mL)	Study design	Potency definition	Data collection	Loss of follow-up (N/Y, %)	6 mo	12 mo	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	ESI	IIEF-6	N	-	-	22.0 (13/60)	32.0 (19/60)
	RARP, 52	Asimakopoulos et al[44], 2011	Italy	59.6 ± 5.4	25.8 ± 2.6			8.9 (5.8-9.2)							75.0^a (39/52)	77.0^a (40/52)
High	LRP, 35	Porpiglia et al[45], 2012	Italy	64.7 ± 5.9	26.8 ± 2.9	37.7 ± 14.1	-	8.3 ± 6.5	RCT	IIEF-5 > 17	IIEF-5	N	48.5 (17/35)	54.2 (19/35)	-	-
	RARP, 35	Porpiglia et al[45], 2012	Italy	63.9 ± 6.7	26.2 ± 2.5	36.2 ± 12.6		6.9 ± 4.2					65.7 (23/35)	80.0^a (28/35)
3/1/3(H)	LRP, 866	Ploussard et al[46], 2012	France	62.7	26.6	-	-	9.8	Prospective	ESI	IIEF-5	N	20.4 (177/866)	31.6 (274/866)	-	-
	RARP, 711	Ploussard et al[46], 2012	France	62.7	26.5			9.2					42.1 (299/711)	57.7 (410/711)
3/1/2(M)	LRP, 41	Cho et al[49],	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	ESI	Interview	N	46.3 (19/41)	68.3 (28/41)	-	-
	RARP, 53	Cho et al[49],	South Korea	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)					56.6 (30/53)	69.8 (37/53)
4/2/3(H)	LRP, 55	Hakimi et al[50], 2009	United States	59.6 (43-72)	-	-	-	7.5	Retrospective	Presence of	IIEF-5	N	47.3 (26/55)	65.5 (36/55)	-	-
	RARP, 58	Hakimi et al[50], 2009	United States	59.8 (42-71)				8.4		Erection			63.8 (37/58)	74.1 (43/58)
3/2/2(H)	LRP, 86	Willis et al[52], 2011	United States	58.0 ± 6.7	27.0 ± 3.4	35.2 ± 10.1	-	5.7 ± 2.9	Retrospective	ESI	Validated	Y, > 20%	57.0 (34/60)	67.0 (38/57)	-	-
	RARP, 74	Willis et al[52], 2011	United States	58.1 ± 6.3	26.7 ± 3.3	41.5 ± 15.2		5.0 ± 2.2			questionnaire		73.0 (29/40)	88.0 (21/24)
3/1/2(M)	LRP, 35	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	ESI	Interview	Y, > 20%	-	47.6 (10/21)	-	-
	RARP, 37	Park et al[53], 2011	South Korea	62.7 (46-71)	26.0 (19.7-39.4)	32.9 (15.5-66.8)		6.32 (1.86-29.5)						54.5 (12/22)
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	ESI	Interview	N	30.8 (26/83)	32.7 (27/83)	10.2 (15/144)	22.9 (33/144)
	RARP, 183	Park et al[54], 2013	South Korea	63 (44-75)	24.7 (16.4-39.4)	30.3 (15.5-82.8)		4.98 (0.05-51.46)					31.1 (49/156)	36.5 (57/156)	20.1 (37/183)	35.0 (64/183)

^aP < 0.05. LRP: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; RARP: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; ESI: Erection sufficient for intercourse; IIEF: International index of erectile function. EPIC: Expanded prostate cancer index composite; SHIM: Sexual health inventory for men; UNS: Unilateral nerve sparing; PSA: Prostate-specific antigen; BNS: Bilateral nerve sparing.

Citation: Shi MJ, Yang J, Meng XY, Li S, Liu T, Fang ZH, Cao R, Wang XH. Comparison of functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis. World J Meta-Anal 2014; 2(3): 107-126
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v2/i3/107.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v2.i3.107