A meta-analysis comparing positive surgical margin and complication rates of 110,016 patients undergoing open retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Abstract

103 Background: There is no clear evidence to support one form of surgical approach over another with regards radical prostatectomy. The aim of this study was to analyze the literature available between 2002 and 2008 and compare positive surgical margin and complication rates for open retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic radical prostatectomy. Methods: A total of 110,016 patients formed the basis of this meta-analysis, representing the largest compilation of radical prostatectomy patients in the literature. Summary data were abstracted on year of publication, pre-operative patient characteristics, positive surgical margins, estimated blood loss, blood transfusions, conversions, length of hospital stay, and total intra- and peri-operative complications, with a further 21 individual perioperative complications selected a priori for abstraction and analysis. Results: The open and laparoscopic surgical groups had similar overall positive surgical margin rates, with the robotic group having lower rates. Both minimally invasive approaches showed significantly lower estimated blood loss and rate of blood transfusions, and a shorter length of hospital stay when compared to an open approach. A further decrease in these parameters was seen when robotic assistance was used. Total complication rates were highest for the open approach, intermediate for the laparoscopic cohort, and lowest for the robotic group. For the individual complication analysis, the rates for death, readmission, reoperation, ureteral, bladder, and rectal injury, ileus, pneumonia, fistula, and wound infection showed significant differences between groups. Conclusions: Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has overall lower perioperative morbidity and improved early oncologic outcomes compared to conventional laparoscopic or open approaches. Further studies comparing longer term oncologic and functional outcomes, as well as cost-benefit comparisons are needed before making recommendations for or against a specific type of surgery. [Table: see text]