Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing C-RARP and RS-RARP have reported different results and the choice between the two operation methods remains controversia. We present the meta-analysis on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Stata SE 14.0. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to describe the results of continuous data; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI were used to describe dichotomous data. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. The meta-analysis revealed that RS-RARP had a statistically significant advantage in terms of continence recovery immediately after operation (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.20-0.77; P = 0.007) (Fig.2a), after 1 month (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10-0.29; P < 0.00001) (Fig.2b), after 3 months (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.09-0.36; P < 0.00001) (Fig.2c), after 6 months (OR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15-0.46; P < 0.00001) (Fig.2d) and after 12 months (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.28-0.89; P = 0.02) (Fig.2e). This meta-analysis found that RS-RARP had better postoperative continence recovery than C-RARP, while sexual function recovery rates were not significantly different. There were also no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of stay, positive margin rate and complications.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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 call

Disclaimer: 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.