Abstract
Objective To compare the outcomes of standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy(SLRP) and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) via meta–analysis. Methods A systematic literature search of articles from January 1992 to April 2015 was conducted via Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases, and the references of the retrieved articles.Fixed– or random–effect models were used to summarize the estimates to evaluate operation time, blood loss, transfusion, catheterization time, hospital stay, surgical margin status, perioperative complications, postoperative erectile dysfunction, and postoperative urinary incontinence in these two approaches. Results A total of 17 articles were included in this study.Compared with RRP group, the operation time was longer in SLRP group (SMD=1.20, 95%CI 0.83, 1.58). On the contrary, the SLRP group held advantages in blood loss (SMD=–2.02, 95%CI –2.67, –1.37), transfusion (RR=0.22, 95%CI 0.16, 0.30), catheterization time (SMD=–1.44, 95%CI –2.34, –0.54), hospital stay (SMD=–0.97, 95%CI –1.29, –0.66)(P 0.05). Conclusions Compared with RRP, SLRP could be a more suitable approach to treat localized prostate cancer.Random clinical trials are needed in the future to better evaluate these two approaches. Key words: Standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; Retropubic radical prostatectomy; Meta–analysis; Clinical research
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
