A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of perineal hydrodissection in perioperative, oncologic, and functional outcomes for patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

This study aims to compare the perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of perineal hydrodissection (HD) with standard treatment (ST) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. We performed an exhaustive search in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, seeking English-language studies relevant to our research question, with a cutoff date of April 2024. The pooled results were assessed using the weighted mean differences (WMDs), standardized mean differences (SMDs), and odds ratios (ORs) metrics. We also performed a sensitivity analysis. The meta-analysis was conducted utilizing Stata/MP version 18 software. The study was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD 42024536400). We included a total of five studies (three RCTs and two retrospective studies). According to the data from the Meta-analysis, the HD group showed positive effects in promoting urinary continence (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.36, 5.12; p = 0.004 < 0.05) and erectile function (SMD 0.92, 95%CI 0.56, 1.27; p < 0.05) within 3 months after surgery. However, no notable disparities were observed in terms of operative time, estimated blood loss, bilateral nerve-sparing rate, or the rate of positive surgical margin. Perineal hydrodissection can be safely applied in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), offering a distinct advantage in functional outcomes compared to those who undergo standard robot-assisted prostatectomy alone.

Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes in obese patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus open radical prostatectomy (ORP): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the perioperative outcomes associated with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP) versus open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in the obese population diagnosed with prostate cancer. We performed a comprehensive search in key databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, encompassing studies of all languages, with a final search date of April 2024. We also omitted articles that consisted of conference abstracts and content that was not pertinent to our study. The aggregated outcomes were evaluated utilizing the metrics of weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). A sensitivity analysis was also integrated into our assessment. The meta-analysis was facilitated by employing Stata/MP version 18 software. Additionally, the study was duly registered with PROSPERO under the identifier: CRD 42024540216. This meta-analysis, which included five trials, shows that compared to ORP, RARP is associated with a reduced estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD -445.77, 95%CI -866.08, -25.45; p = 0.038), a decreased transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95%CI 0.13, 0.21; p < 0.001), and a diminished overall complication rate (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.58, 0.86; p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences were found in operative time (OT) (WMD 1.88, 95%CI -46.53, 50.28; p = 0.939) or length of stay (LOS) (WMD -0.41, 95%CI -1.07, 0.25; p = 0.221). Among patients with obesity and prostate cancer, RARP demonstrates advantages over ORP by reducing estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements, and the incidence of complications. Notably, there were no significant differences in operative duration and hospital stay between the two surgical approaches. These findings suggest that RARP could be a preferable surgical option for obese individuals with prostate cancer.