Comparative assessment of safety and efficacy between the AirSeal system and conventional insufflation system in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcome measures between the AirSeal system and conventional insufflation system in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Up to May 2024, comprehensive searches were conducted across various prominent databases worldwide, such as PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, focusing solely on English-language materials. Reviews and protocols devoid of published data were excluded, along with conference abstracts and articles unrelated to the study's aims. Primary outcome measures encompassed operative duration and hospitalization length, while secondary outcome measures included estimated blood loss and complications. The meta-analysis included five cohort studies, encompassing a total of 1503 patients. In comparison to the conventional insufflation system group, the AirSeal group displayed shorter operative times (WMD -15.62, 95% CI -21.87 to -9.37; p < 0.00001) and reduced hospital stays (WMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.30; p < 0.00001). Fewer major complications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66; p = 0.01). Notably, there were no significant differences observed in estimated blood loss or overall complications between the two groups. Compared to conventional insufflation systems, employing the AirSeal system in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy appears to potentially decrease operative time and hospital length of stay without a concurrent rise in estimated blood loss or complication rates.