Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes in obese patients undergoing Da Vinci robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The influence of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in obese (OB) and non-obese (NOB) prostate cancer patients remains a topic of debate. The objective of this study was to juxtapose the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of RARP in OB and NOB cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched the databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant studies published in English up to September 2023. Review Manager was used to compare various parameters. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023473136). Sixteen comparative trials were included for 8434 obese patients compared with 55,266 non-obese patients. RESULTS: The OB group had a longer operative time (WMD 17.8 min, 95% CI 9.7,25.8; p < 0.0001), a longer length of hospital stay (WMD 0.18 day, 95% CI 0.12,0.24; p < 0.00001, a higher estimated blood loss (WMD 50.6 ml, 95% CI 11.7,89.6; p = 0.01), and higher pelvic lymphadenectomy rate (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04,1.12; p < 0.0001)and lower nerve sparing rate (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91,0.99; p < 0.01), but there was no difference between unilateral (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8,1.3; p = 0.8)and bilateral (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.9,1.0; p = 0.06)nerve sparing rate. Then, complication rates (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5,1.7; p < 0.00001) were higher in the OB group, and both major (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1,1.8; p = 0.01)and minor (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1,1.7; p < 0.01)complication rates were higher in the OB group. Moreover, obese patients showed significantly higher probabilities of incontinence (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03,1.33; p = 0.01) and impotency (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01,1.15; p = 0.02) at 1 year. Last, the positive surgical margin (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1,1.3; p < 0.01) was higher in the OB group. CONCLUSION: In the obese group, perioperative outcomes, total complications, functional outcomes, and oncologic outcomes were all worse for RARP. Weight loss before RARP may be a feasible strategy to improve the prognosis of patients.

A comprehensive examination and meta-analysis evaluating perioperative, oncological, and functional results of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in comparison to three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D LRP).

Assessing the perioperative, oncological, and functional results of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D LRP), a comprehensive exploration of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was carried out until July 2024. The combined results were evaluated by utilizing the weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) through the application of Stata version 18, where data were gathered and scrutinized. In addition, sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of our findings. In the meta-analysis we conducted, four studies were incorporated in total, which comprised two randomized controlled trials, one study that was retrospective and another that was prospective. The findings revealed that RARP was associated with a significantly reduced estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD - 31.04, 95%CI - 54.57, - 7.51; p = 0.01) compared to 3D LRP. Nonetheless, there were no notable statistical variances seen between the two groups regarding operative time (OT), nerve-sparing rates, positive surgical margin (PSM) rates, biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates, or the restoration of urinary continence and potency 3 or 6 months after the surgery. In conclusion, our comprehensive meta-analysis has offered a detailed contrast between the results of RARP and 3D LRP in the treatment of prostate cancer. The findings highlight a considerable decrease in projected blood loss linked with RARP, yet no notable variances were detected between the two methods regarding other perioperative, oncological, and functional results.

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.

Meta-analysis and systematic review of factors predicting conversion to radical nephrectomy following robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy in renal cancer patients.

Evaluating the risk factors for the conversion from robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) to radical nephrectomy (RN). Through a comprehensive database search encompassing PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, we identified pertinent English-language research published by June 2024. We utilized the NOS scale for quality assessment. The aggregate effect was quantified via the odds ratio (OR), alongside a 95% confidence interval (CI). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using both fixed-effects and random-effects models to evaluate reliability. The meta-analytical process was facilitated by the Stata 18 software suite. Our meta-analysis encompassed a total of 8 retrospective studies and 3 prospective studies, totaling 4056 patients. We found that increasing patient age (OR: 1.04; 95% CI 1.00-1.08; P = 0.005), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (3 or above) (OR: 2.74; 95% CI 1.52-4.93; P = 0.001), elevated R.E.N.A.L. scores (7 or above) (OR: 2.49; 95% CI 1.57-3.95; P < 0.001), and the use of off-clamp RAPN (OR: 7.21; 95% CI 2.60-19.93; P < 0.001) significantly raised the odds of surgical conversion. On the other hand, male sex (OR: 1.04; 95% CI 0.67-1.62; P = 0.858), the side of the tumor (OR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.48-1.95; P = 0.936), tumor size (OR: 3.43; 95% CI 0.57-20.55; P = 0.177), body mass index (BMI) (OR: 1.03; 95% CI 0.96-1.11; P = 0.426), clinical stage (OR: 3.78; 95% CI 0.46-30.70; P = 0.214), and the use of single-port RAPN (OR: 0.54; 95% CI 0.16-1.78; P = 0.31) did not show a statistically significant link to an increased conversion risk. This meta-analysis elucidates the critical risk factors for the conversion from robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy to radical nephrectomy, providing significant guidance for preoperative risk assessment and clinical decision-making. However, our findings necessitate validation through studies with larger sample sizes.

Comparative study of HIFU partial gland ablation and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: an evidence-based approach.

PURPOSE: This research aims to use a data-driven analytical method to compare the effectiveness of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) partial gland ablation with Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) for treating localized prostate cancer, evaluating variations in treatment results. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature, covering key databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, with the latest information updated until August 2024. We utilized Stata 18 for data analysis, computing weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous data and odds ratios (ORs) for categorical data, with all results reported alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Additionally, the studies included were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: This meta-analysis incorporated data from three paired studies, encompassing a total of 1,503 patients. Patients treated with HIFU experienced a shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.78, 95%CI -5.14,-0.43; p = 0.02) compared to those who received RARP. Additionally, evaluations at 3 and 12 months post-surgery revealed that the HIFU group exhibited better recovery in urinary continence and sexual function than the RARP group. However, there were no notable disparities in complication rates (OR = 1.48, 95%CI 0.92,2.40; p = 0.110) and the requirement for salvage therapy (OR = 2.92, 95%CI 0.60,14.33; p = 0.186) between the two treatment methods. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this meta-analysis appears to suggest potential benefits of HIFU partial gland ablation in possibly reducing the length of hospital stays and seems to indicate that it might be associated with improved recovery in terms of urinary incontinence and sexual function, particularly during the early to mid-term postoperative period. Although the differences in complication rates and the requirement for salvage therapy between the two surgical methods were not statistically significant, the findings provided by this analysis are instrumental in guiding clinical decision-making.