Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

전체 글

(1)Original Article Yonsei Med J 2016 Sep;57(5):1165-1177 http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. pISSN: 0513-5796 · eISSN: 1976-2437. Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Hyun-Ju Seo1,2*, Na Rae Lee2,3*, Soo Kyung Son2,3, Dae Keun Kim4, Koon Ho Rha5, and Seon Heui Lee6 Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chosun University, Gwangju; Department of Health Technology Assessment, National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul; 3 Department of Health Policy and Hospital Management, Graduate School of Public Health, Korea University, Seoul; 4 Department of Urology, CHA Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University, Seoul; 5 Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul; 6 Department of Nursing Science, College of Nursing, Gachon University, Incheon, Korea. 1 2. Purpose: To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies. Results: A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up. Conclusion: RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP. Key Words: Prostatic neoplasms, robotics, prostatectomy, meta-analysis. Received: November 11, 2015 Revised: April 8, 2016 Accepted: July 8, 2016 Co-corresponding authors: Dr. Seon Heui Lee, Department of Nursing Science, College of Nursing, Gachon University, 191 Hambangmoe-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21936, Korea. Tel: 82-32-820-4235, Fax: 82-32-820-4201, E-mail: sunarea87@gachon.ac.kr and Dr. Koon Ho Rha, Department of Urology, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea. Tel: 82-2-2228-2318, Fax: 82-2-312-2538, E-mail: khrha@yuhs.ac *Hyun-Ju Seo and Na Rae Lee contributed equally to this work. •The authors have no financial conflicts of interest. © Copyright: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2016 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.. www.eymj.org. INTRODUCTION Abbou, et al. first performed robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in 2000.1 Since then, the da Vinci Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has been used in South Korea to conduct various types of urological surgery including radical prostatectomy, partial nephrectomy, and radical cystectomy, beginning in 2005.2 Radical prostatectomy is considered the gold standard of surgical treatment.3 However, the demand for RARP has increased due to better defined surgical anatomy and improved surgical maneuverability.2 Thirty-six da Vinci robotic surgery platforms are currently in use throughout 30 hospitals in Korea. A total of 24207 (24337 cases) patients underwent robotic surgery from 2005 to 2012, and the average. 1165.

(2) SR and MA of RARP Compared to RRP for Prostate Cancer. annual growth rate for robotic surgery was 51.4% from 2005 to 2011. One-third (33.7%) of all robotic surgeries in the world were RARP; this was the most commonly performed robotic procedure.4 In 2013, the Korean government announced plans to radically enhance health insurance coverage for major conditions including cancer. Robotic surgery to treat prostatic cancer was to be included in the discretionary benefits list by as early as 2015.5 However, its inclusion has been questioned by some, since the comparative effectiveness of robotic surgery remains unclear. In previous reviews of RARP versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), RARP yielded better peri-operative outcomes.6,7 However, the evidence suggesting that RARP is associated with a decrease in urinary incontinence, improved potency, and reduction in biochemical recurrence (BCR), compared to RRP is limited. This is because most publications had a high risk of bias and exhibited extensive patient heterogeneity. While some experts have argued that the extension of discretionary benefits to robotic surgery increases patient choice, others point out that, without scientific evaluation, expansion of coverage will undermine the National Health Insurance system because demand will explode.8 Accordingly, the aim of the present paper was to comprehensively review and update data on the efficacy and safety of RARP versus RRP in patients with prostate cancer.. MATERIALS AND METHODS Inclusion criteria Studies eligible for inclusion consisted of randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies that compared RARP and RRP. A study was excluded if it did not report any outcome of interest (i.e., safety or functional and oncological outcomes).. Search strategy We systematically reviewed recent research using techniques that evaluated comparative effectiveness, as suggested by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.9 Existing systematic reviews and health technology assessment reports were identified by searching ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, RISS4U, KISS, KISTI, KMbase, and NDSL from January 1980 to August 2013. We used combinations of MeSH terms and the following phrases: exp Prostatic Neoplasms/or prostatic cancer, exp Robotics/or exp Surgery; and Computer-Assisted/or robot*/or (da vinci or davinci) (Supplementary Table 1, only online). In addition, we scanned the reference lists of relevant reviews and reports by international health technology assessment agencies to ensure comprehensive data collection. We then searched for recent studies (published from January 2010 to September 2013), because two high-quality systematic reviews (HIQA10;. 1166. Ramsay, et al.11) had only searched primary studies up to March 2011. We did not restrict publication language. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts and retrieved full-texts of all studies potentially meeting inclusion criteria. If the reviewing authors disagreed, the conflict was resolved by discussion and consensus, or by consulting a third member of the review team. We used structured data extraction forms to gather pertinent information; this included characteristics of the country of publication, study design, study participants, interventions, comparisons, outcome measures, outcome definitions, follow-up durations, and results that were statistically significant. If information was unclear or missing, we contacted the original authors by e-mail.. Quality assessment and data synthesis Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias. Systematic reviews were evaluated using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) tool,12 and non-randomized studies newly published after 2010 were evaluated using the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.11 The modified RoB tool is composed of seven specific domains: random sequence generation (selection bias), allocation concealment (selection bias), controlling for confounding (selection bias), blinding (performance and detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), and other sources of bias (regarding funding source). Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.2 and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) version 2.0. For continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences or standardized mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model of the Dersimonian-Laird method.13 Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (M-H RRs), with 95% CIs, derived using a random effects model, were calculated if outcomes were dichotomous.14 Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and Q statistics. An I2>50% was considered to indicate substantial heterogeneity.15 With the Q statistic, heterogeneity was deemed to be significant if p<0.10. Publication bias was tested by Funnel plotting and using Egger’s test.16. RESULTS Details of included studies An overview of the study selection process is provided in Fig. 1. We used two existing systematic reviews on RARP in patients with prostate cancer as the best-available evidence, which included 38 studies. An additional twenty-three studies were included through new searches for updates. Finally, we evaluated 61 articles, none of which was a randomized controlled clinical trial (Supplementary Table 2, only online). In characteristic of the included studies, the average age of the participants ranged from late fifties to sixties, which were similar behttp://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165.

(3) Hyun-Ju Seo, et al.. Ovid MEDLINE (n=244) Ovid EMBASE (n=339) Cochrane Library (n=126) HTAi&INAHTA (n=16). Eligibility Included. Step 2 Domestic (n=313) KoreaMed (n=70) KISS (n=162) RISS (n=2) KMbase (n=79). Oversea (n=4523) Ovid MEDLINE (n=986) Ovid EMBASE (n=3434) Cochrane Library (n=103). Records after duplicates removed (n=536). Records after duplicates removed (n=3896). Records screened (n=110). Records screened (n=95). Systematic reviews published since 2010 (n=27). Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n=44). Screening. Identification. Step 1. Identified high quality SR (SR n=3) (n=38 studies). Records excluded (n=51). Full-text articles excluded, with reasons (n=21) • ‌Not reporting outcomes of interest (n=9) • ‌Not a comparative study (n=4) • ‌Gray literatures (n=1) • ‌Claims database (n=7). Studies included in qualitative synthesis (n=23). Studies included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) (n=23). Fig. 1. Study selection flow-diagram.. tween the two procedures. Of the 61 studies, 14 reported significantly different pre-operative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels. Also, 22.9% of the included studies reported significantly higher clinical stages for RRP patients than for RARP patients.. Quality assessment results The summary of risk of bias in the cohort studies is shown in Fig. 2. In this evaluation, random sequence generation and concealment of allocation to group were considered to be important in terms of estimating any treatment effect. Most studies were flawed in this respect. Accordingly, most of the studies were susceptible to selection bias. Blinding domain was rated as a low risk of bias because of objective outcome measures or patient reported outcomes using valid and reliable questionnaires. In the selective outcome reporting domain, approximately 40% of the included studies were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias, because those studies did not investigate all of the outcomes of interest in this review.. Perioperative outcomes Complications There was no significant difference in the rates of anastomosis http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. Other risk of bias Selective reporting Incomplete outcome data Blinding Confounding Allocation concealment Random sequence generation 0%. 20%. High risk. 40%. 60%. Unclear risk. 80%. 100% Low risk. Fig. 2. The summary of risk of bias.. site leakage (eight studies with 4880 participants; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47–1.28; p=0.330), infection (six studies with 7373 participants; RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09–1.54; p=0.770), ileus (six studies with 2437 participants; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.41–1.66; p=0.580), or deep vein thrombosis (five studies with 4576 participants; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.39–1.46; p=0.400) between RARP and RRP in the selected studies (Supplementary Table 3, only online). How-. 1167.

(4) SR and MA of RARP Compared to RRP for Prostate Cancer. ever, RARP was associated with lower rates of bladder neck contracture (five studies with 2846 participants; RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.09–0.73; p=0.010), organ injury (ten studies with 6715 participants; RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30–0.99; p=0.040), and pulmonary embolism (three studies with 3159 participants; RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07–0.83; p=0.002), compared to RRP (Supplementary Fig. 1A, B, and C, respectively, only online). Transfusion data were reported in 25 studies (10605 participants). Although high degrees of study heterogeneity were evident, RARP was associated with a lower risk of transfusion than RRP in both prospective (12 studies with 6038 participants; RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.11–0.30; p<0.001) and retrospective studies (13 studies with 4567 participants; RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07–0.30; p<0.001) (Supplementary Fig. 1D, only online). Clavien-Dindo classification Data from 19 studies (12175 participants) indicated a slight, but significant, difference in Clavien-Dindo complication rates after RARP, compared to RRP (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.25–0.55, I2= 84%; p<0.001). When complications were classified by severity, Clavien-Dindo I–II scores (11 studies with 5295 participants) and Clavien-Dindo III–V (8 studies with 6880 participants) scores suggested that RARP was associated with a decreased risk of Clavien-Dindo scores of I–II (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16–0.46, I2=88%; p<0.001) However, studies reporting such outcomes exhibited substantial heterogeneity (Supplementary Fig. 1E, only online). Operation time RARP was associated with longer operating times than RRP (25 studies with 8080 participants; mean difference 32.27 min more; 95% CI: 12 to 52.54 min; p=0.002). Heterogeneity among study data was high (I2=98%) (Supplementary Fig. 1F, only online). Length of stay Hospital days were reported in 27 studies (7939 participants). Sub-group analysis was carried out by classifying countries into the US, Asia-Pacific, and Europe. RARP was associated with shorter hospital stay in the US (13 studies with 5112 participants; mean difference -0.66 days, 95% CI -1.19–-0.14; p= 0.010), Asia-Pacific (five studies with 1256 participants; mean difference -3.39 days, 95% CI -4.11–-2.67; p<0.001), and Europe (nine studies with 1571 participants; mean difference -1.81 days, 95% CI -2.76–-0.86; p<0.001). Considerable heterogeneity was evident between studies (I2=99%), possibly attributable to differences in healthcare systems (Supplementary Fig. 1G, only online).. Functional outcomes Incontinence rate at 12 months Based on the results of 11 studies (participants: 2510), RARP was associated with reduced urinary incontinence 12 months. 1168. after surgery, compared to RRP (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42–0.93, I2= 47%; p=0.020) (Fig. 3A). In order to consider differences in baseline characteristics of participants, subgroup analysis was performed. In 10 studies with a similar pre-operative PSA level between groups, urinary incontinence rate at 1 year after surgery was lower for RARP than for RRP (participants: 2214; RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45–0.99, I2=45%; p=0.040). Also, pre-operative clinical stage for all of the studies was not significantly different between procedure groups. Potency rate at 12 months Based on the results of 10 studies (participants: 2142), RARP was found to be associated with improved postoperative potency rate, compared to RRP (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18–1.70, I2= 65%; p<0.001) (Fig. 3B). In addition, nine studies (participants: 1956) with a similar pre-operative PSA level between groups demonstrated favorable potency rate for RARP (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16–1.72, I2=63%; p<0.001). In eight studies (participants: 1965) with comparable pre-operative clinical stages between groups, RARP was associated with higher recovery of erectile function (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.12–1.67, I2=69%; p=0.002).. Oncological outcomes Positive margin rates Positive margin rates for RARP were equivalent to those for RRP in both prospective (13 studies, 6226 participants; RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74–1.23, I2=80%; p=0.72) and retrospective studies (23 studies, 12813 participants; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75–1.03, I2=71%; p=0.110) (Fig. 4A). However, the heterogeneity among the results of individual studies was considerable. Sensitivity analysis was performed with only low risk studies (seven studies with 1412 participants; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67–1.30, I2=65%; p=0.670) (Fig. 4B) and for pT2 tumors in studies published after 2010 (7 studies with 2321 patients; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45–1.19, I2=73%; p=0.210) to determine the effect of removing any outliers. However, there was still moderate heterogeneity (Fig. 4C). Biochemical recurrence Fourteen studies (8259 participants) reported recurrence of prostate cancer, defined at various cut-off values of >0.4 ng/mL, >0.2 ng/mL, ≥2 ng/mL, >0.1 ng/mL, or ≥0.1 ng/mL. Therefore, the subgroup analysis was performed according to definition of PSA failure. Rates of BCR were reported in five studies (1485 participants) using the definition PSA level >0.2 ng/mL.17-21 RARP was associated with a reduced risk of BCR, compared to RRP (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61–0.81, I2=0%; p<0.001) (Fig. 5A). Subgroup analysis according to follow-up duration demonstrated a similar recurrence-free survival between the two procedures upon long-term follow up (Fig. 5B). Publication bias Publication bias for each outcome was tested using Egger’s rehttp://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165.

(5) Hyun-Ju Seo, et al.. A Study or subgroup Ham, et al.50 Nadler, et al.58. RARP Events Total. Events. RRP Total. Weight. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. Year. 20 5. 110 46. 14.2% 7.6%. 0.44 [0.23, 0.82] 1.05 [0.32, 3.36]. 2008 2010. 15 5. 188 44. Ou, et al.19. 0. 30. 1. 30. 1.5%. 0.33 [0.01, 7.87]. 2009. Rocco, et al.25. 2. 79. 26. 217. 5.8%. 0.21 [0.05, 0.87]. 2009. Ficarra, et al.69. 6. 103. 17. 105. 10.5%. 0.36 [0.15, 0.88]. 2009. Krambeck, et al.53. 20. 244. 30. 476. 15.5%. 1.30 [0.75, 2.24]. 2009. Di Pierro, et al.47. 5. 45. 15. 75. 9.8%. 0.56 [0.22, 1.43]. 2011. Hohwü, et al.35. 10. 77. 46. 154. 14.2%. 0.43 [0.23, 0.81]. 2011. Iseki, et al.. 5. 44. 15. 60. 9.9%. 0.45 [0.18, 1.16]. 2012. Ludovico, et al.56. 4. 82. 1. 48. 2.9%. 2.34 [0.27, 20.35]. 2013. Choo, et al.45. 5. 77. 7. 176. 8.1%. 1.63 [0.53, 4.98]. 2013. 1497. 100.0%. 0.62 [0.42, 0.93]. 34. Total (95% CI) Total events. 1013 77. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. 183. Heterogeneity: tau2=0.19; chi2=18.96, df=10 (p=0.04); I2=47%. 0.01. Test for overall effect: Z=2.34 (p=0.02). 0.1. 1. Favours RARP. 10. 100. Favours RRP. B Study or subgroup Ham, et al.50 Krambeck, et al.53. RARP Events Total. Events. RRP Total. Weight. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. Year. 109 174. 188 248. 33 309. 110 492. 12.8% 18.8%. 1.93 [1.42, 2.64] 1.12 [1.00, 1.24]. 2008 2009. Ficarra, et al.69. 52. 64. 20. 41. 12.1%. 1.67 [1.19, 2.33]. 2009. Nadler, et al.58. 8. 22. 0. 4. 0.5%. 3.70 [0.25, 54.07]. 2010. Rocco, et al.25. 48. 79. 88. 215. 15.0%. 1.48 [1.17, 1.89]. 2009. Ou, et al.19. 14. 16. 1. 2. 1.6%. 1.75 [0.43, 7.08]. 2009. Hohwü, et al.35. 31. 77. 68. 154. 12.4%. 0.91 [0.66, 1.26]. 2011. Di Pierro, et al.47. 12. 22. 12. 47. 6.2%. 2.14 [1.15, 3.97]. 2011. Ludovico, et al.56. 22. 60. 12. 48. 6.6%. 1.47 [0.81, 2.65]. 2013. Choo, et al.45. 42. 77. 70. 176. 14.0%. 1.37 [1.04, 1.80]. 2013. 1289. 100.0%. 1.41 [1.18, 1.70]. Total (95% CI) Total events. 853 512. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. 613. Heterogeneity: tau2=0.04; chi2=25.78, df=9 (p=0.002); I²=65% Test for overall effect: Z=3.67 (p=0.0002). 0.02. 0.1 Favours RRP. 1. 10. 50. Favours RARP. Fig. 3. Functional outcomes: RARP vs. RRP. (A) Incontinence rate at 12 months after surgery. (B) Potency rate at 12 months after surgery. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval.. gression test, and showed only one example of publication bias associated with reported transfusion rates (Supplementary Table 4, only online). So, trill and fill analysis was performed to adjust the publication bias. After excluding eight studies by trim-and-fill analysis, the risk ratio of transfusion rate was still lower in RARP than in RRP (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17–0.38).. DISCUSSION To explore the supposed superiority of robotic platforms in treating prostate cancer, we performed a systematic review of all research published to 2013 that compared RARP with RRP. http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. We found no randomized controlled study in which the two modalities were compared. Thus, we included only 61 nonrandomized studies, of which 20 were prospective and 41 were retrospective. Studies were regarded as being of high quality if three of four domains (random sequence generation, confounding, blinding, and incomplete outcome reporting) were judged to have a low risk of bias. Only 13 (21.3%) publications met these criteria, and the risk of bias in most of the studies might confound the true effects of RARP. Since 2010, 23 systematic reviews have been published, and they reported various outcomes. Our systematic review included recently published studies and reflects comprehensive primary outcomes, including perioperative outcomes, func-. 1169.

(6) SR and MA of RARP Compared to RRP for Prostate Cancer. A. RARP RRP Study or subgroup Events Total Events Total 1) Prospective cohort study Tewari, et al.17 18 200 23 100 Wood, et al.68 21 117 8 89 Ham, et al.50 37 118 29 110 Fracalanza, et al.26 10 35 6 26 Ficarra, et al.69 35 103 21 105 Kordan, et al.52 171 830 132 414 Loeb, et al.21 22 152 25 137 Doumerc, et al.48 45 212 84 502 Breyer, et al.44 54 292 108 695 Kim, et al.70 143 528 58 235 Di Pierro, et al.47 11 74 23 72 Williams, et al.67 80 604 30 346 Ludovico, et al.56 8 82 14 48 Subtotal (95% CI) 3347 2879 Total events 655 561 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.16; chi²=59.36, df=12 (p<0.00001); I²=80% Test for overall effect: Z=0.36 (p=0.72) 2) Retrospective cohort study Ahlering, et al.43 10 60 12 60 Smith, et al.63 30 199 69 197 Schroeck, et al.61 106 362 122 435 Laurila, et al.54 11 88 12 84 Coronato, et al.46 12 98 14 57 Rocco, et al.25 26 120 60 240 Ou, et al.19 15 30 6 30 Drouin, et al.18 12 71 15 83 White, et al.66 11 50 18 50 Nadler, et al.58 5 50 12 50 Krambeck, et al.53 46 294 100 588 Barocas, et al.20 281 1413 148 491 Lo, et al.55 4 20 5 20 Uvin, et al.64 1 13 0 9 Magheli, et al.57 102 522 75 522 Philippou, et al.59 9 50 10 50 Hong, et al.51 52 182 46 80 Wang, et al.65 160 1038 95 707 Punnen, et al.60 68 233 40 177 Iseki, et al.34 17 44 23 60 Froehner, et al.49 33 252 242 1925 Silberstein, et al.62 74 493 147 691 Choo, et al.45 30 77 70 178 Subtotal (95% CI) 5759 7054 Total events 1115 1341 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.09; chi²=76.49, df=22 (p<0.00001); I²=71% Test for overall effect: Z=1.58 (p=0.11) Total (95% CI) 9106 9933 Total events 1770 1902 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.10; chi²=136.83, df=35 (p<0.00001); I²=74% Test for overall effect: Z=1.41 (p=0.16) Test for subgroup differences: chi²=0.28, df=1 (p=0.60); I²=0%. Weight. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. 2.5% 1.8% 3.2% 1.5% 2.9% 4.1% 2.7% 3.6% 3.7% 3.8% 2.2% 3.2% 1.7% 37.0%. 0.39 [0.22, 0.69] 2.00 [0.93, 4.30] 1.19 [0.79, 1.79] 1.24 [0.52, 2.97] 1.70 [1.06, 2.71] 0.65 [0.53, 0.78] 0.79 [0.47, 1.34] 1.27 [0.92, 1.75] 1.19 [0.88, 1.60] 1.10 [0.84, 1.43] 0.47 [0.25, 0.88] 1.53 [1.03, 2.27] 0.33 [0.15, 0.74] 0.95 [0.74, 1.23]. 2003 2007 2008 2008 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2010 2013. 1.8% 3.3% 4.0% 1.8% 2.0% 3.2% 1.7% 2.1% 2.2% 1.3% 3.6% 4.2% 1.0% 0.2% 3.8% 1.7% 3.7% 4.0% 3.5% 2.8% 3.5% 3.9% 3.5% 63.0%. 0.83 [0.39, 1.78] 0.43 [0.29, 0.63] 1.04 [0.84, 1.30] 0.88 [0.41, 1.87] 0.50 [0.25, 1.00] 0.87 [0.58, 1.30] 2.50 [1.12, 5.56] 0.94 [0.47, 1.86] 0.61 [0.32, 1.16] 0.42 [0.16, 1.10] 0.92 [0.67, 1.27] 0.66 [0.56, 0.78] 0.80 [0.25, 2.55] 2.14 [0.10, 47.38] 1.36 [1.04, 1.79] 0.90 [0.40, 2.02] 0.50 [0.37, 0.67] 1.15 [0.91, 1.45] 1.29 [0.92, 1.81] 1.01 [0.62, 1.65] 1.04 [0.74, 1.46] 0.98 [0.76, 1.27] 0.99 [0.71, 1.38] 0.88 [0.75, 1.03]. 2004 2007 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2009 2010 2010 2010 2011 2012 2012 2012 2013 2012 2013 2013 2013. 100.0%. 0.91 [0.79, 1.04]. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. Year. 0.2. 0.5 Favours RARP. 1. 2. 5. Favours RRP. Fig. 4. Positive margin rate: RARP vs. RRP. (A) Positive margin rate. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval.. 1170. http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165.

(7) Hyun-Ju Seo, et al.. B Study or subgroup. RARP Events Total. Events. RRP Total. Weight. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. Year. 120 103. 60 21. 240 105. 17.3% 16.0%. 0.87 [0.58, 1.30] 1.70 [1.06, 2.71]. 2009 2009. Rocco, et al.25 Ficarra, et al.69. 26 35. White, et al.66. 11. 50. 18. 50. 12.5%. 0.61 [0.32, 1.16]. 2009. 9. 50. 10. 50. 9.8%. 0.90 [0.40, 2.02]. 2012. Iseki, et al.34. 17. 44. 23. 60. 15.5%. 1.01 [0.62, 1.65]. 2012. Punnen, et al.60. 68. 233. 40. 177. 18.8%. 1.29 [0.92, 1.81]. 2013. Ludovico, et al.56. 8. 82. 14. 48. 10.1%. 0.33 [0.15, 0.74]. 2013. 730. 100.0%. 0.93 [0.67, 1.30]. Philippou, et al.59. Total (95% CI) Total events. 682 174. 186. Heterogeneity: tau²=0.12; chi²=17.23, df=6 (p=0.008); I²=65%. 0.01. Test for overall effect: Z=0.43 (p=0.67). C Study or subgroup Nadler, et al.58 Doumerc, et al.48. Events. RRP Total. Weight. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. Year. 46 146. 3 13. 33 54. 5.8% 16.0%. 0.51 [0.09, 2.89] 0.48 [0.25, 0.93]. 2010 2010. Di Pierro, et al.47. 5. 60. 13. 54. 11.9%. 0.35 [0.13, 0.91]. 2011. Magheli, et al.57. 36. 387. 24. 364. 18.2%. 1.41 [0.86, 2.32]. 2011. Hong, et al.51. 35. 148. 30. 61. 19.8%. 0.48 [0.33, 0.71]. 2012. Philippou, et al.59. 5. 32. 4. 27. 9.3%. 1.05 [0.31, 3.54]. 2012. Silberstein, et al.62. 31. 315. 46. 597. 19.1%. 1.28 [0.83, 1.97]. 2013. 1190. 100.0%. 0.73 [0.45, 1.19]. Subtotal (95% CI) Total events. 0.1. 1. Favours RARP. RARP Events Total 2 17. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. 1131 131. 10. 100. Favours RRP. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. 133. Heterogeneity: tau²=0.27; chi²=22.16, df=6 (p=0.001); I²=73% Test for overall effect: Z=1.27 (p=0.21). 0.02. 0.1 Favours RARP. 1. 10. 50. Favours RRP. Fig. 4. Positive margin rate: RARP vs. RRP. (B) Positive margin rate of studies assessed as low risk studies. (C) Positive margin rate for pT2 tumors in studies published after 2010. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval.. tional outcomes, and oncologic outcomes. Compared to open surgery, RARP yielded superior outcomes in terms of complications, such as organ injury, pulmonary embolism, and bladder neck contracture. In addition, the risk of overall complications assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification was lower for RARP than RRP, although a high level of study heterogeneity was evident. Notably, the risk of complications after RARP was significantly lower than that after RRP, unlike earlier reports.7,11 Our findings are in line with results reported elsewhere. That is, a population-based observational cohort study using US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare-linked data found that minimally invasive radical prostatectomy with or without robotic assistance was associated with lower rates of postoperative respiratory complications (4.3% vs. 6.6%; p=0.004), miscellaneous surgical complications (4.3% vs. 5.6%; p=0.03), and anastomotic stricture (5.8% vs. 14.0%; p<0.001), compared to RRP.22 In addition, RARP postoperative courses based on claims made to the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service from September 2005 to December 2011 might be lower than http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. RRP. Totals of 1830 and 1660 patients underwent RARP and RRP, respectively, and postoperative complication rates to 30 days as measured by re-admission to intensive care units were 0.1% and 0.2%, respectively.23 Thus, we suggest that RARP can be performed with a reasonably low complication rate. In the present study, RARP was associated with better perioperative outcomes than RRP in terms of operation time and length of hospital stay, consistent with findings of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses.7,24 In addition, claims data from South Korea showed that RARP-associated hospital stays were shorter than those for RRP (RARP 9 days vs. RRP 12.7 days). We sought to explore heterogeneity in pooled estimates of operative time by performing subgroup analysis according to the definition of operative time, but could not do so because most studies did not describe how they measured the duration of surgery. Only four studies reported durations of surgery as follows: from skin incision to skin closure time in both procedures;25 from insertion of the Veress needle (RARP) to the suture of the last laparoscopic port, and skin incision to suture (RRP);26 as the time from incision to placement of dressings;27. 1171.

(8) SR and MA of RARP Compared to RRP for Prostate Cancer. A Study or subgroup. RARP Events Total. 1) PSA >0.4 ng/mL Krambeck, et al.53 14 248 Subtotal (95% CI) 248 Total events 14 Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z=0.46 (p=0.65). RRP. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. Events. Total. Weight. 32. 492 492. 7.8% 7.8%. 0.87 [0.47, 1.60] 0.87 [0.47, 1.60]. 2009. 100 83 30 257 137 607. 7.3% 5.5% 4.3% 12.1% 4.6% 33.8%. 0.53 [0.28, 1.03] 0.68 [0.28, 1.64] 1.20 [0.41, 3.51] 0.71 [0.61, 0.82] 0.90 [0.32, 2.50] 0.71 [0.61, 0.81]. 2003 2009 2009 2010 2010. 435 154 177 176 942. 9.6% 4.5% 11.1% 5.1% 30.4%. 0.65 [0.42, 0.99] 0.38 [0.14, 1.07] 1.05 [0.80, 1.39] 0.50 [0.20, 1.26] 0.70 [0.44, 1.10]. 2008 2011 2013 2013. 2.8% 8.1% 10.9%. 1.33 [0.31, 5.65] 0.80 [0.45, 1.42] 0.86 [0.50, 1.46]. 2010 2013. 8.0% 9.1% 17.1%. 1.65 [0.91, 2.97] 0.20 [0.13, 0.33] 0.58 [0.07, 4.46]. 2011 2012. 100.0%. 0.71 [0.54, 0.93]. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. Year. 32. 2) PSA >0.2 ng/mL Tewari, et al.17 16 200 15 Drouin, et al.18 7 71 12 Ou, et al.19 6 30 5 Barocas, et al.20 181 425 155 Loeb, et al.21 7 152 7 Subtotal (95% CI) 878 Total events 217 194 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.00; chi²=1.85, df=4 (p=0.76); I²=0% Test for overall effect: Z=4.86 (p<0.00001) 3) PSA ≥2 ng/mL Schroeck, et al.61 29 362 54 Hohwü, et al.35 4 77 21 Punnen, et al.60 79 233 57 Choo, et al.45 5 77 23 Subtotal (95% CI) 749 Total events 117 155 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.12; chi²=7.78, df=3 (p=0.05); I²=61% Test for overall effect: Z=1.56 (p=0.12). 4) PSA >0.1 or PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL Nadler, et al.58 4 50 3 50 Silberstein, et al.62 16 493 39 961 Subtotal (95% CI) 543 1011 Total events 20 42 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.00; chi²=0.42, df=1 (p=0.52); I²=0% Test for overall effect: Z=0.57 (p=0.57) 5) Not reported Magheli, et al.57 28 522 17 522 Wang, et al.65 21 1038 70 707 Subtotal (95% CI) 1560 1229 Total events 49 87 Heterogeneity: tau²=2.11; chi²=29.04, df=1 (p<0.00001); I²=97% Test for overall effect: Z=0.53 (p=0.60) Total (95% CI) 3978 4281 Total events 417 510 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.16; chi²=47.23, df=13 (p<0.00001); I²=72% Test for overall effect: Z=2.49 (p=0.01) Test for subgroup differences: chi²=0.91, df=4 (p=0.92); I²=0%. 0.05. 0.2 Favours RARP. 1. 5. 20. Favours RRP. Fig. 5. Biochemical recurrence: RARP vs. RRP. (A) Biochemical recurrence according to definition of PSA failure. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval.. 1172. http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165.

(9) Hyun-Ju Seo, et al.. B. RARP RRP Study or subgroup Events Total Events 1) Follow-up duration ≤1 yr Hohwü, et al.35 4 77 21 Wang, et al.65 21 1038 70 Subtotal (95% CI) 1115 Total events 25 91 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.03; chi²=1.15, df=1 (p=0.28); I²=13% Test for overall effect: Z=5.64 (p<0.00001). Total. Weight. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. 154 707 861. 4.5% 9.1% 13.6%. 0.38 [0.14, 1.07] 0.20 [0.13, 0.33] 0.23 [0.14, 0.39]. 2011 2012. 100 435 30 492 522 961 176 2716. 7.3% 9.6% 4.3% 7.8% 8.0% 8.1% 5.1% 50.2%. 0.53 [0.28, 1.03] 0.65 [0.42, 0.99] 1.20 [0.41, 3.51] 0.87 [0.47, 1.60] 1.65 [0.91, 2.97] 0.80 [0.45, 1.42] 0.50 [0.20, 1.26] 0.81 [0.59, 1.10]. 2003 2008 2009 2009 2011 2013 2013. 2.8% 5.5% 12.1% 11.1% 31.6%. 1.33 [0.31, 5.65] 0.68 [0.28, 1.64] 0.71 [0.61, 0.82] 1.05 [0.80, 1.39] 0.84 [0.62, 1.14]. 2010 2009 2010 2013. 137 137. 4.6% 4.6%. 0.90 [0.32, 2.50] 0.90 [0.32, 2.50]. 2010. Total (95% CI) 3978 4281 Total events 417 510 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.16; chi²=47.23, df=13 (p<0.00001); I²=72% Test for overall effect: Z=2.49 (p=0.01) Test for subgroup differences: chi²=20.44, df=3 (p=0.0001); I²=85.3%. 100.0%. 0.71 [0.54, 0.93]. 2) 1<Follow-up duration≤2 yrs Tewari, et al.17 16 200 15 Schroeck, et al.61 29 362 54 Ou, et al.19 6 30 5 Krambeck, et al.53 14 248 32 Magheli, et al.57 28 522 17 Silberstein, et al.62 16 493 39 Choo, et al.45 5 77 23 Subtotal (95% CI) 1932 Total events 114 185 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.07; chi²=9.78, df=6 (p=0.13); I²=39% Test for overall effect: Z=1.34 (p=0.18). 3) More than 2 yrs follow-up Nadler, et al.58 4 50 3 50 Drouin, et al.18 7 71 12 83 Barocas, et al.20 181 425 155 257 Punnen, et al.60 79 233 57 177 Subtotal (95% CI) 779 567 Total events 271 227 Heterogeneity: tau²=0.04; chi²=6.95, df=3 (p=0.07); I²=57% Test for overall effect: Z=1.12 (p=0.26) 4) Not reported Loeb, et al.21 7 152 Subtotal (95% CI) 152 Total events 7 Heterogeneity: not applicable Test for overall effect: Z=0.20 (p=0.84). 7. Risk ratio M-H, random, 95% CI. Year. 7. 0.005. 0.1 Favours RARP. 1. 10. 200. Favours RRP. Fig. 5. Biochemical recurrence: RARP vs. RRP. (B) Biochemical recurrence according to follow-up duration. RARP, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; RRP, retropubic radical prostatectomy; CI, confidence interval.. and as the mean operative time of hernia repair.28 Our results are comparable with those of a propensity-score matching study that adjusted for among-series differences in preoperative Gleason scores, preoperative PSA levels, and pathological stages. The cited work comprised a systematic review and meta-analysis of RRP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and RARP patient series, and found that the rate of http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. perioperative complications was significantly lower for RARP than RRP.24 The prevalence of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after RARP are affected by preoperative patient characteristics (age, body mass index, and comorbidities), the experience of the surgeon, the surgical technique used, and methodological features, such as the definitions of continence and. 1173.

(10) SR and MA of RARP Compared to RRP for Prostate Cancer. potency, outcome measures, and follow-up periods.29 To optimize our evaluation of functional outcomes, we included only outcome data obtained using objective measures or reliable and valid measurement instruments. In detail, the definition of continence was the use of no pad at all, 0–1 pads per day, or no leak measured by a validated questionnaire including the International Consultation of Incontinence QuestionnaireUrinary Incontinence; and that for erectile function a positive response to a validated questionnaire reporting erection sufficient for intercourse with or without prescription of a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor or a score >17 on the Sexual Health Inventory for Men or 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function validated questionnaires exploring erectile dysfunction. In this review, urinary incontinence and erectile function recovery rates measured at 12 months after RARP were lower than those after RRP. Our findings suggest positive functional outcomes of RARP, because of an increase of magnitude in effect size, compared to previous systematic review.11 The beneficial effects on the functional outcomes of RARP, compared to RRP, remained even in meta-analysis that added the study findings recently reported by Haglind, et al.30 [incontinence rate: 12 studies, 4937 participants, RR (M-H, random) 0.68, 95% CI 0.47–0.98, I2=62%; potency rate: 11 studies, 4564 participants, RR (M-H, random) 1.36, 95% CI 1.18–1.57, I2=61%]. The positive effect of functional outcomes of RARP is attributable to developments in surgical technique: nerve sparing improves both continence and potency, because the urethral rhabdosphincter receives afferent fibers from the traversing bundle.31 On robotic platforms, three-dimensional-magnified views allow meticulous dissection of both the periprostatic fascia layer and the neurovascular bundle. New insights into the multilayer structure of the periprostatic fascia and the course of the cavernous nerves have supported the development of intra- or inter-fascial surgical planes, enabling the urinary and sexual functional outcomes to be improved. Developments in RARP operative techniques improving urinary function, such as puboprostatic-sparing approaches, bladder neck preservation, selective dorsal vein complex division, nerve-sparing mechanisms, reconstruction of the posterior musculofascia, and anterior restoration of the pelvic space, are advocated. Meanwhile, several physician-reported studies showed incontinence rates ranging from 10 to 15% at 12 months after radical prostatectomy.32,33 Considering that an acceptable incontinence rate is about 10%, regardless of the surgical technique, two studies included in this review might be performed by under-experienced surgeons due to a high incontinence rate, reaching 25 to 30%.34,35 Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction are highly problematic conditions affecting many aspects of quality of life, and healthcare providers must be aware of this.36-38 Although a randomized controlled study was not included in this review, our results suggest that healthcare providers should consider patient preferences in terms of re-. 1174. covery of urinary and erectile function when choosing between RARP and RRP, even though disparities in the receipt of RARP in terms of demographic characteristics, such as household income and insurance status, were reported.39 The rate of positive surgical margins was comparable between RARP and RRP (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74–1.23, I2=80%). In sensitivity analysis to explore the heterogeneity, our results did not change in the analysis restricted to studies rated as low risk of bias and for pT2 tumors studies published after 2010. The results were consistent with the findings of previous systematic reviews.22 Pooled estimates from 15 studies published from 2004 to 2011 showed that RARP is associated with a lower rate of positive surgical margins for pT2 tumors (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49–0.81, I2=27.7%).5 However, we suggest that our findings reflect more recent evidence of the comparative effectiveness of RARP versus RRP. Furthermore, this result was consistent with the recent cohort study investigating long-term oncologic outcomes, including positive surgical margins, in RARP compared to RRP (between group comparison p=0.230).40 In the present review, RARP was associated with a lower rate of BCR, compared to RRP, regardless of the manner in which such recurrence was defined (14 studies with 8259 patients; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54–0.93, I2=72%). To explore the effect of heterogeneity, we classified studies in terms of their definition of PSA failure, and selected PSA >0.2 ng/mL as an optimal criterion based on clinical practice guidelines.41 Upon subgroup analysis, RARP was superior to RRP in this context (five studies with 1485 patients; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61–0.81, I2=0%); heterogeneity was not an issue in this subgroup. This result is inconsistent with that of an earlier meta-analysis (hazard ratio 0.9, 95% CI 0.7–1.2, p=0.526), which reported differences in the definition of BCR-free survival.42 In additional analysis according to follow-up period, PSA failure rates were significantly lower in RARP than in RRP in a short term follow-up of 1 year or less. However, PSA failure rates between the two procedures were similar in long-term follow up. Our present review had several limitations. First, significant oncologic and functional heterogeneity was evident; surgical skills and experience vary. Second, no randomized controlled trial has been conducted. Third, virtually no significant report on cancer-specific mortality rate following RARP has been published, because of the long follow-up needed in prognostic studies on clinically localized prostate cancer and the fact that RARP is a relatively new procedure. In conclusion, we found that RARP might be favorable to RRP in aspects of post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes, including urinary and erectile function. Also oncologic outcomes, such as positive margins and BCR, were comparable between two groups. However, most included studies were non-randomized studies and moderate to substantial heterogeneity was evident. Therefore, we suggest that further high quality studies minimizing selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165.

(11) Hyun-Ju Seo, et al.. follow-up are needed to determine clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was completed as part of the Health Technology Assessment Report (project no. NA 2013-007) funded by the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency in South Korea.. REFERENCES 1. Yates DR, Vaessen C, Roupret M. From Leonardo to da Vinci: the history of robot-assisted surgery in urology. BJU Int 2011;108: 1708-13. 2. Rha KH. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol 2009;50:97-104. 3. Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 2011;59: 61-71. 4. Hakimi AA, Feder M, Ghavamian R. Minimally invasive approaches to prostate cancer: a review of the current literature. Urol J 2007;4:130-7. 5. Kang DC, Hardee MJ, Fesperman SF, Stoffs TL, Dahm P. Low quality of evidence for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a systematic review of the published literature. Eur Urol 2010;57:930-7. 6. Shin CM, Lee YJ, Suh HS, Jang BH, Park JE, Son HJ, et al. Safety and Effectiveness of Robot Surgery. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency; 2011. 7. Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 2013;20:312-21. 8. Kim Y. Towards universal coverage: an evaluation of the benefit enhancement plan for four major conditions in Korean National Health Insurance. J Korean Med Assoc 2014;57:198-203. 9. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Using existing systematic reviews to replace de novo processes in conducting comparative effectiveness reviews 2013. [accessed on 2016 April 26]. Available at: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/methodsguide/systematicreviewsreplacedenovo.pdf. 10. Health Information and Quality Authority. Health technology assessment of robot-assisted surgery in selected surgical procedures 2011. [accessed on 2016 April 26]. Available at: https://www. google.co.kr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved =0ahUKEwjm5pX4_KvMAhWBLKYKHftsALkQFggiMAA&url=htt ps%3A%2F%2Fwww.hiqa.ie%2Fsystem%2Ffiles%2FHTA-robotassisted-surgery.pdf&usg=AFQjCNF33ID0LDoPAIIyxz8SEJprheE HZw&bvm=bv.120551593,d.dGo&cad=rjt. 11. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L, Armstrong N, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012;16:1-313. 12. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, Avezova R, Kossan G, Chew L, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J 2010;4:84-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. 13. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177-88. 14. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959;22: 719-48. 15. Schroll JB, Moustgaard R, Gøtzsche PC. Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:22. 16. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34. 17. Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M; Members of the VIP Team. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 2003;92:205-10. 18. Drouin SJ, Vaessen C, Hupertan V, Comperat E, Misraï V, Haertig A, et al. Comparison of mid-term carcinologic control obtained after open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 2009;27:599-605. 19. Ou YC, Yang CR, Wang J, Cheng CL, Patel VR. Comparison of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon. Anticancer Res 2009;29:1637-42. 20. Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y, Herrell SD, Chang SS, Clark PE, et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: comparison of short-term biochemical recurrence-free survival. J Urol 2010;183:990-6. 21. Loeb S, Epstein JI, Ross AE, Schultz L, Humphreys EB, Jarow JP. Benign prostate glands at the bladder neck margin in robotic vs open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010;105:1446-9. 22. Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 2009;302:1557-64. 23. Lee SH, Kim JH, Whang JS, Choi JE, Shin EH, Lee NR, et al. Clinical effectiveness and safety of robotic surgery. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency; 2014. 24. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:431-52. 25. Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, Ospina JC, Mazzoleni F, Errico G, et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 2009;104:991-5. 26. Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Galfano A, Novara G, Mangano A, et al. Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int 2008; 101:1145-9. 27. Tomaszewski JJ, Matchett JC, Davies BJ, Jackman SV, Hrebinko RL, Nelson JB. Comparative hospital cost-analysis of open and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 2012;80:126-9. 28. Nakamura LY, Nunez RN, Castle EP, Andrews PE, Humphreys MR. Different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2011;25: 621-4. 29. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405-17. 30. Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Wallerstedt A, Wilderäng U, Thorsteinsdottir T, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol 2015;68:216-25. 31. Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ. Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int 2004;94:1071-6.. 1175.

(12) SR and MA of RARP Compared to RRP for Prostate Cancer. 32. McGlynn B, Al-Saffar N, Begg H, Gurun M, Hollins G, McPhee S, et al. Management of urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. Urol Nurs 2004;24:475-82, 515. 33. Moore KN, Truong V, Estey E, Voaklander DC. Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: can men at risk be identified preoperatively? J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 2007;34:270-9. 34. Iseki R, Ohori M, Hatano T, Tachibana M. [Urinary incontinence in early experience with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomycomparison with radical retropubic prostatectomy]. Hinyokika Kiyo 2012;58:409-14. 35. Hohwü L, Borre M, Ehlers L, Venborg Pedersen K. A short-term cost-effectiveness study comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Med Econ 2011;14: 403-9. 36. Milsom I, Coyne KS, Nicholson S, Kvasz M, Chen CI, Wein AJ. Global prevalence and economic burden of urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2014;65:79-95. 37. Jannini EA, Sternbach N, Limoncin E, Ciocca G, Gravina GL, Tripodi F, et al. Health-related characteristics and unmet needs of men with erectile dysfunction: a survey in five European countries. J Sex Med 2014;11:40-50. 38. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:1-15. 39. Kim J, ElRayes W, Wilson F, Su D, Oleynikov D, Morien M, et al. Disparities in the receipt of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: between-hospital and within-hospital analysis using 2009-2011 California inpatient data. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007409. 40. Jackson MA, Bellas N, Siegrist T, Haddock P, Staff I, Laudone V, et al. Experienced open vs early robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a 10-year prospective and retrospective comparison. Urology 2016;91:111-8. 41. Heidenreich A, Bastian PJ, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, van der Kwast T, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014;65:467-79. 42. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, Ahlering TE, Carroll PR, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:382-404. 43. Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 2004;63:819-22. 44. Breyer BN, Davis CB, Cowan JE, Kane CJ, Carroll PR. Incidence of bladder neck contracture after robot-assisted laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010;106:1734-8. 45. Choo MS, Choi WS, Cho SY, Ku JH, Kim HH, Kwak C. Impact of prostate volume on oncological and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic. Korean J Urol 2013;54:15-21. 46. Coronato EE, Harmon JD, Ginsberg PC, Harkaway RC, Singh K, Braitman L, et al. A multi-institutional comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robotassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. J Robotic Surg 2009;3:175-8. 47. Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol 2011;59:1-6. 48. Doumerc N, Yuen C, Savdie R, Rahman MB, Rasiah KK, Pe Benito R, et al. Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to ro-. 1176. botic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years. BJU Int 2010;106:378-84. 49. Froehner M, Novotny V, Koch R, Leike S, Twelker L, Wirth MP. Perioperative complications after radical prostatectomy: open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 2013;90:312-5. 50. Ham WS, Park SY, Kim WT, Koo KC, Lee YS, Choi YD. Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis based on a single surgeon’s experience. J Robotic Surg 2008;2:235-41. 51. Hong H, Mel L, Taylor J, Wu Q, Reeves H. Effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy on surgical pathology specimens. Diagn Pathol 2012;7:24. 52. Kordan Y, Barocas DA, Altamar HO, Clark PE, Chang SS, Davis R, et al. Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2010; 106:1036-40. 53. Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML, et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int 2009;103:448-53. 54. Laurila TA, Huang W, Jarrard DF. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients. Urol Oncol 2009; 27:529-33. 55. Lo KL, Ng CF, Lam CN, Hou SS, To KF, Yip SK. Short-term outcome of patients with robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: for localised carcinoma of prostate. Hong Kong Med J 2010;16:31-5. 56. Ludovico GM, Dachille G, Pagliarulo G, D’Elia C, Mondaini N, Gacci M, et al. Bilateral nerve sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is associated with faster continence recovery but not with erectile function recovery compared with retropubic open prostatectomy: the need for accurate selection of patients. Oncol Rep 2013;29:2445-50. 57. Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM, Guzzo TJ, Netto G, Humphreys EB, et al. Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int 2011;107:1956-62. 58. Nadler RB, Casey JT, Zhao LC, Navai N, Smith ZL, Zhumkhawala A, et al. Is the transition from open to robotic prostatectomy fair to your patients? A single-surgeon comparison with 2-year follow-up. J Robotic Surg 2010;3:201-7. 59. Philippou P, Waine E, Rowe E. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open: comparison of the learning curve of a single surgeon. J Endourol 2012;26:1002-8. 60. Punnen S, Meng MV, Cooperberg MR, Greene KL, Cowan JE, Carroll PR. How does robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compare with open surgery in men with high-risk prostate cancer? BJU Int 2013;112:E314-20. 61. Schroeck FR, Sun L, Freedland SJ, Albala DM, Mouraviev V, Polascik TJ, et al. Comparison of prostate-specific antigen recurrencefree survival in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing either radical retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2008;102:28-32. 62. Silberstein JL, Su D, Glickman L, Kent M, Keren-Paz G, Vickers AJ, et al. A case-mix-adjusted comparison of early oncological outcomes of open and robotic prostatectomy performed by experienced high volume surgeons. BJU Int 2013;111:206-12. 63. Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R, et al. A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007; 178:2385-9. 64. Uvin P, de Meyer JM, Van Holderbeke G. A comparison of the perihttp://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165.

(13) Hyun-Ju Seo, et al.. operative data after open radical retropubic prostatectomy or robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Acta Chir Belg 2010; 110:313-6. 65. Wang R, Wood DP Jr, Hollenbeck BK, Li AY, He C, Montie JE, et al. Risk factors and quality of life for post-prostatectomy vesicourethral anastomotic stenoses. Urology 2012;79:449-57. 66. White MA, De Haan AP, Stephens DD, Maatman TK, Maatman TJ. Comparative analysis of surgical margins between radical retropubic prostatectomy and RALP: are patients sacrificed during initiation of robotics program? Urology 2009;73:567-71. 67. Williams SB, Chen MH, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC, Kacker R, Hirsch MS, et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s). Urology 2010;76:1097-101. 68. Wood DP, Schulte R, Dunn RL, Hollenbeck BK, Saur R, Wolf JS Jr, et al. Short-term health outcome differences between robotic and conventional radical prostatectomy. Urology 2007;70:945-9. 69. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, D’Elia C, Secco S, Iafrate M, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 2009;104:534-9. 70. Kim SC, Song C, Kim W, Kang T, Park J, Jeong IG, et al. Factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy: robot-assisted versus retropubic. Eur Urol 2011;60:413-9. 71. Burgess SV, Atug F, Castle EP, Davis R, Thomas R. Cost analysis of radical retropubic, perineal, and robotic prostatectomy. J Endourol 2006;20:827-30. 72. D’Alonzo RC, Gan TJ, Moul JW, Albala DM, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN, et al. A retrospective comparison of anesthetic management of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Clin Anesth 2009;21:322-8. 73. Durand X, Vaessen C, Bitker MO, Richard F. [Retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted total prostatectomies: comparison of postoperative course and histological and functional results based on a series of 86 prostatectomies]. Prog Urol 2008;18:60-7. 74. Farnham SB, Webster TM, Herrell SD, Smith JA Jr. Intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2006;67:360-3. 75. Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G, Cookson MS, Chang SS, Herrell SD, et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;177:929-31. 76. Ball AJ, Gambill B, Fabrizio MD, Davis JW, Given RW, Lynch DF, et al. Prospective longitudinal comparative study of early healthrelated quality-of-life outcomes in patients undergoing surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer: a short-term evaluation of five approaches from a single institution. J Endourol 2006;20:723-31. 77. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, Ho R, Cadeddu JA, Roehrborn CG, et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2010;57:453-8. 78. Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T, Ho R, Cadeddu JA, Roehrborn CG, et al. The influence of body mass index on the cost of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2010;106:1188-93.. http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165. 79. Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, Jonsson MN, Volz DS, Steineck G, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology 2010;75:1092-7. 80. Chan RC, Barocas DA, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R, et al. Effect of a large prostate gland on open and robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2008;101: 1140-4. 81. Malcolm JB, Fabrizio MD, Barone BB, Given RW, Lance RS, Lynch DF, et al. Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 2010;183:1822-8. 82. Miller J, Smith A, Kouba E, Wallen E, Pruthi RS. Prospective evaluation of short-term impact and recovery of health related quality of life in men undergoing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;178 (3 Pt 1):854-8. 83. Truesdale MD, Lee DJ, Cheetham PJ, Hruby GW, Turk AT, Badani KK. Assessment of lymph node yield after pelvic lymph node dissection in men with prostate cancer: a comparison between robotassisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy in the modern era. J Endourol 2010;24:1055-60. 84. Choi D, Kim D, Kyung YS, Lim JH, Song SH, You D, et al. Clinical experience with limited lymph node dissection for prostate cancer in Korea: single center comparison of 247 open and 354 robotassisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy series. Korean J Urol 2012;53:755-60. 85. Gainsburg DM, Wax D, Reich DL, Carlucci JR, Samadi DB. Intraoperative management of robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. JSLS 2010;14:1-5. 86. Lallas CD, Pe ML, Thumar AB, Chandrasekar T, Lee FC, McCue P, et al. Comparison of lymph node yield in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with that in open radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011;107:1136-40. 87. Martinschek A, Heinzelmann K, Ritter M, Heinrich E, Trojan L. Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in a matched-pair analysis. J Endourol 2012;26:1136-41. 88. Minniti D, Chiadò Piat S, Di Novi C. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based comparison. Technol Health Care 2011;19:331-9. 89. Mirza M, Art K, Wineland L, Tawfik O, Thrasher JB. A comparison of radical perineal, radical retropubic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies in a single surgeon series. Prostate Cancer 2011;2011:878323. 90. Na HS, Kim HY, Do SH, Jeon YT, Hwang JW, Oh AY. Review of anesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: in comparison with radical retropubic prostatectomy. Anesth Pain Med 2009; 4:364-7. 91. Froehner M, Koch R, Leike S, Novotny V, Twelker L, Wirth MP. Urinary tract-related quality of life after radical prostatectomy: open retropubic versus robot-assisted laparoscopic approach. Urol Int 2013;90:36-40.. 1177.

(14)