Song Cao, Chong-Jian Wang, Cai-Xia Chen, Hong-Yuan Li, Hao-Tian Huang, Lin-Han Jiang, Xue-Song Yang
{"title":"复发性疾病的机器人与开放式补救性前列腺切除术:手术结果的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Song Cao, Chong-Jian Wang, Cai-Xia Chen, Hong-Yuan Li, Hao-Tian Huang, Lin-Han Jiang, Xue-Song Yang","doi":"10.1007/s11701-025-02400-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this research was to evaluate the perioperative results, complications, and oncological outcomes associated with two distinct surgical methods for the treatment of recurrent prostate cancer: salvage robotic-assisted prostatectomy and salvage open prostatectomy. Our methodology concerned a complete search of major databases, along with PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Embase, covering studies published in all kinds of languages up to November 2024. Additionally, we omitted papers that included conference summaries and lacked relevance to our research. Various variables were assessed by employing weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) metrics. The meta-analyses of the diverse parameters were carried out using Review Manager. Additionally, this study was registered with PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42025632172. This meta-analysis encompassed three trials, comprising a total of 510 participants. The findings revealed that salvage robot-assisted prostatectomy (sRARP) had a longer operative time (WMD 13.88, 95% CI 3.94, 23.82; p = 0.006) and a lower rate of postoperative vesicourethral anastomotic stricture (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.83; p = 0.01) compared to salvage open prostatectomy (sORP). However, no massive variations had been determined between the two surgical techniques regarding hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and oncological outcomes. In the context of recurrent prostate cancer, sRARP demonstrated superiority over sORP in reducing the rate of vesicourethral anastomotic stricture. Nonetheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that there were no significant disparities between the two techniques in terms of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion requirements, complication rates, and oncological results. These insights suggest that robotic-assisted prostatectomy may offer certain advantages for patients undergoing salvage prostatectomy, but these benefits are not conclusive and warrant further validation through larger-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":47616,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","volume":"19 1","pages":"243"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Robotic versus open salvage prostatectomy in recurrent disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Song Cao, Chong-Jian Wang, Cai-Xia Chen, Hong-Yuan Li, Hao-Tian Huang, Lin-Han Jiang, Xue-Song Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11701-025-02400-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this research was to evaluate the perioperative results, complications, and oncological outcomes associated with two distinct surgical methods for the treatment of recurrent prostate cancer: salvage robotic-assisted prostatectomy and salvage open prostatectomy. Our methodology concerned a complete search of major databases, along with PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Embase, covering studies published in all kinds of languages up to November 2024. Additionally, we omitted papers that included conference summaries and lacked relevance to our research. Various variables were assessed by employing weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) metrics. The meta-analyses of the diverse parameters were carried out using Review Manager. Additionally, this study was registered with PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42025632172. This meta-analysis encompassed three trials, comprising a total of 510 participants. The findings revealed that salvage robot-assisted prostatectomy (sRARP) had a longer operative time (WMD 13.88, 95% CI 3.94, 23.82; p = 0.006) and a lower rate of postoperative vesicourethral anastomotic stricture (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.83; p = 0.01) compared to salvage open prostatectomy (sORP). However, no massive variations had been determined between the two surgical techniques regarding hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and oncological outcomes. In the context of recurrent prostate cancer, sRARP demonstrated superiority over sORP in reducing the rate of vesicourethral anastomotic stricture. Nonetheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that there were no significant disparities between the two techniques in terms of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion requirements, complication rates, and oncological results. These insights suggest that robotic-assisted prostatectomy may offer certain advantages for patients undergoing salvage prostatectomy, but these benefits are not conclusive and warrant further validation through larger-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Robotic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"243\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Robotic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02400-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Robotic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-025-02400-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究的目的是评估两种不同的手术方法治疗复发性前列腺癌的围手术期结果、并发症和肿瘤预后:补救性机器人辅助前列腺切除术和补救性开放式前列腺切除术。我们的方法涉及到主要数据库的完整搜索,包括PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library和Embase,涵盖截至2024年11月以各种语言发表的研究。此外,我们省略了包括会议摘要和与我们的研究缺乏相关性的论文。采用加权平均差(WMD)和比值比(OR)指标评估各种变量。使用Review Manager对不同参数进行meta分析。此外,本研究已在PROSPERO注册,注册号为CRD42025632172。这项荟萃分析包括三个试验,共有510名参与者。结果显示,救助性机器人辅助前列腺切除术(sRARP)的手术时间较长(WMD 13.88, 95% CI 3.94, 23.82;p = 0.006),术后膀胱尿道吻合口狭窄发生率较低(OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.83;p = 0.01),与补救性开放式前列腺切除术(sORP)相比。然而,两种手术技术在住院时间、估计失血量、输血率、并发症和肿瘤预后方面没有明显差异。在前列腺癌复发的情况下,sRARP在降低膀胱尿道吻合口狭窄的发生率方面优于sORP。然而,重要的是要承认两种技术在住院时间、出血量、输血要求、并发症发生率和肿瘤结果方面没有显著差异。这些见解表明,机器人辅助前列腺切除术可能为接受补救性前列腺切除术的患者提供一定的优势,但这些好处不是决定性的,需要通过更大规模、高质量的随机对照试验进一步验证。
Robotic versus open salvage prostatectomy in recurrent disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes.
The objective of this research was to evaluate the perioperative results, complications, and oncological outcomes associated with two distinct surgical methods for the treatment of recurrent prostate cancer: salvage robotic-assisted prostatectomy and salvage open prostatectomy. Our methodology concerned a complete search of major databases, along with PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Embase, covering studies published in all kinds of languages up to November 2024. Additionally, we omitted papers that included conference summaries and lacked relevance to our research. Various variables were assessed by employing weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR) metrics. The meta-analyses of the diverse parameters were carried out using Review Manager. Additionally, this study was registered with PROSPERO and the registration number is CRD42025632172. This meta-analysis encompassed three trials, comprising a total of 510 participants. The findings revealed that salvage robot-assisted prostatectomy (sRARP) had a longer operative time (WMD 13.88, 95% CI 3.94, 23.82; p = 0.006) and a lower rate of postoperative vesicourethral anastomotic stricture (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.83; p = 0.01) compared to salvage open prostatectomy (sORP). However, no massive variations had been determined between the two surgical techniques regarding hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and oncological outcomes. In the context of recurrent prostate cancer, sRARP demonstrated superiority over sORP in reducing the rate of vesicourethral anastomotic stricture. Nonetheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that there were no significant disparities between the two techniques in terms of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion requirements, complication rates, and oncological results. These insights suggest that robotic-assisted prostatectomy may offer certain advantages for patients undergoing salvage prostatectomy, but these benefits are not conclusive and warrant further validation through larger-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials.
期刊介绍:
The aim of the Journal of Robotic Surgery is to become the leading worldwide journal for publication of articles related to robotic surgery, encompassing surgical simulation and integrated imaging techniques. The journal provides a centralized, focused resource for physicians wishing to publish their experience or those wishing to avail themselves of the most up-to-date findings.The journal reports on advance in a wide range of surgical specialties including adult and pediatric urology, general surgery, cardiac surgery, gynecology, ENT, orthopedics and neurosurgery.The use of robotics in surgery is broad-based and will undoubtedly expand over the next decade as new technical innovations and techniques increase the applicability of its use. The journal intends to capture this trend as it develops.