Background: Robotic surgery has been developed with an attempt to reduce the difficulty of complex laparoscopic procedures. The goal of this study was to perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) through all relevant comparative studies.
Methods: A literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (including prospective and retrospective studies) comparing perioperative, functional, or oncologic outcomes of both LRP and RARP, and meta-analysis was applied using the Review Manager V5.3 software.
Results: Twenty-four studies were identified in the literature search, including 2 RCTs, 7 prospective studies, and 15 retrospective studies. LRP and RARP showed similarity in the operative time, catheterization duration, in-hospital stay, and overall complication rate. However, blood loss [mean difference (MD) 75.94; p = 0.03] and transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) 2.08; p = 0.001] were lower in RARP. Moreover, RARP was associated with significantly improved outcomes for continence and potency rates to those of LRP at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate (OR 0.88; p = 0.03) was lower in LRP. However, there was no significant differences in ≤pT2 (OR 0.94; p = 0.69) and ≥pT3 (OR 0.94; p = 0.73) PSM rates between LRP and RARP. Additionally, LRP and RARP owned similar biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (OR 1.15; p = 0.90).
Conclusions: RARP was associated with lower blood loss and transfusion rate and much greater functional outcomes in contrast to LRP. However, there was no conclusive evidence that RARP was advantaged in terms of perioperative (except for blood loss and transfusion rate) and oncologic outcomes.
Keywords: Laparoscopy; Meta-analysis; Prostate cancer; Radical prostatectomy; Robotics.