Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yong Wei; Qianying Ji; Wenren Zuo; Shiyan Wang; Xinyi Wang; Qingyi Zhu

doi:10.21037/tau-21-850

Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transl Androl Urol. 2021 Dec;10(12):4402-4411. doi: 10.21037/tau-21-850.

Authors

Yong Wei^{1

2}, Qianying Ji¹, Wenren Zuo¹, Shiyan Wang¹, Xinyi Wang¹, Qingyi Zhu^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China.
² Department of Urology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single port (SP) robot radical prostatectomy and multiport (MP) robot radical prostatectomy.

Methods: Using the China National Knowledge database, EMBASE, Cochrane library, PubMed, and other databases to obtain relevant research, SP robot radical prostatectomy and MP robot radical prostatectomy were comprehensively evaluated. The software used to evaluate the impact of the results in the selected articles was Review Manager 5.2. Deviation analysis, forest plot analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out for the collected data.

Results: A total of 7 related studies that met the criteria were finally included. The data showed that the operation time of MP in the control group was significantly longer than that in the SP group [mean difference (MD) =-13.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): (-17.35, -9.23); P<0.00001; I²=50%]. The duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for SP surgery was shorter than that for MP surgery [MD =-18.30; 95% CI: (-29.17, -7.42); P=0.0010; I²=94%]. The blood loss of SP surgery was less than that of MP surgery [MD =-15.54; 95% CI: (-28.37, -2.71); the total effective rate was 0.02; I²=0%]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between SP and MP surgery [risk ratio (RR) =0.95; 95% CI: (0.55, 1.63); P=0.85; I²=0%]. At the same time, the sensitivity analysis and funnel plot showed that this study was robust and publication bias was limited.

Discussion: Our results show that SP robotic radical prostatectomy is superior to MP robotic radical prostatectomy in terms of efficacy and safety. SP robot radical prostatectomy is worthy of wide promotion.

Keywords: Single port robotic radical prostatectomy (SP robotic radical prostatectomy); meta-analysis; multiport robotic radical prostatectomy (MP robotic radical prostatectomy).