title: Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently, a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RARP with RRP. Outcomes of interest included perioperative, pathologic variables and complications.
  
  
  RESULTS
  78 studies assessing RARP vs. RRP were included for meta-analysis. Although patients underwent RRP have shorter operative time than RARP (WMD: 39.85 minutes; P < 0.001), patients underwent RARP have less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -507.67ml; P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR = 0.13; P < 0.001), shorter time to remove catheter (WMD = -3.04day; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.62day; P < 0.001), lower PSM rates (OR:0.88; P = 0.04), fewer positive lymph nodes (OR:0.45;P < 0.001), fewer overall complications (OR:0.43; P < 0.001), higher 3- and 12-mo potent recovery rate (OR:3.19;P = 0.02; OR:2.37; P = 0.005, respectively), and lower readmission rate (OR:0.70, P = 0.03). The biochemical recurrence free survival of RARP is better than RRP (OR:1.33, P = 0.04). All the other calculated results are similar between the two groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results indicate that RARP appears to be safe and effective to its counterpart RRP in selected patients.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
authors.forename: Kun
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Tang
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.|Department of Urology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, China.
authors.forename: Kehua
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Jiang
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, China.
authors.forename: Hongbo
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
authors.forename: Zhiqiang
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
authors.forename: Hua
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Xu
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
authors.forename: Zhangqun
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Ye
mesh_terms: D016063:Blood Loss, Surgical; D001803:Blood Transfusion; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D060787:Neoplasm Grading; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D016017:Odds Ratio; D061646:Operative Time; D010359:Patient Readmission; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000401:mortality / Q000601:surgery*; D012307:Risk Factors; D065287:Robotic Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods; D016896:Treatment Outcome
keywords: meta-analysis; prostate cancer; retropubic radical prostatectomy; robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; update