SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • laparoscopic;
  • prostatectomy;
  • robot;
  • surgery;
  • systematic review

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Conflict of interest
  9. References

Medline and Embase were searched for studies comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with open prostatectomy and conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate a pooled estimate of effect. The 95% prediction intervals are also reported. One randomized study and 50 observational studies were identified. The results show that compared with open surgery, robot-assisted surgery is associated with fewer positive surgical margins for pT2 tumors (relative risk 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.49–0.81, P < 0.001) and improved outcomes for sexual function at 12 months (relative risk 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.33–1.93, P = <0.001), and, to a lesser extent, urinary function at 12 months (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.02–1.11, P < 0.01). Compared with conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy, robot-assisted surgery is associated with a slight increase in urinary function at 12 months (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.17, P = 0.013). The overall methodological quality of the included studies was low, with high levels of heterogeneity. The use of prediction intervals as an aid to decision making in regard to the introduction of this technology is examined. Clinically significant improvements in positive surgical margins rates for pT2 tumors and sexual function at 12 months associated with robot-assisted surgery in comparison with open surgery should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the evidence. Differences between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery are minimal.


Abbreviations & Acronyms
BMI

body mass index

CI

confidence interval

NA

not applicable

PSA

prostate-specific antigen

PSM

positive surgical margins

RR

relative risk

WMD

weighted mean difference

Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Conflict of interest
  9. References

Since its introduction in 1999, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has grown in popularity at the expense of open and conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy.[1] This has occurred in the absence of high-quality data supporting an improvement in long-term outcomes. Previous systematic reviews have found evidence of better perioperative results, but concluded that there were insufficient data to support the superiority of robot-assisted surgery in relation to oncological and functional outcomes associated with the procedure, including cancer reoccurrence and return of sexual and urinary function.[2, 3] Extensive diffusion of a health technology in the absence of supporting evidence gives cause for concern, given the numerous examples that exist of widely-used treatments that were later shown to be ineffective or harmful.[4] The rapid diffusion of robot-assisted prostatectomy is being matched by the rate of publication of peer-reviewed papers on the technique; a search for Medline articles with “robot” and “prostatectomy” in the title shows an average increase of approximately 25% every year between 2007 and 2011. This emphasises the need for systematic reviews of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to keep pace with the literature, in the hope that additional evidence can provide greater clarity in regard to its effectiveness compared to alternative surgical approaches.

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Conflict of interest
  9. References

Literature search

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and the Journal of Robotic Surgery were searched for English or French language studies that compared robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with either open prostatectomy or conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer. Our search terms and methodology filters are modelled on a previously published[5] search strategy. The outcomes of interest were positive surgical margins (PSM) for pT2 and pT3 tumours, post-operative sexual function and urinary continence at 12 months, estimated blood loss (ml), transfusion rate, complication rate, operative time (minutes) and length of hospital stay (days). Post operative sexual function was defined as the ability to maintain an erection sufficient for intercourse with or without the help of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors or through the use of validated sexual function questionnaires. Continence was defined as either no leakage, the use of 0 to 1 pads per day or through the use of validated continence questionnaires. The time period covered by the search was January 2000 to March 2011.

Study selection

Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to open or conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy that included data on the specified outcomes of interest were eligible for inclusion. All studies were individually reviewed by two independent reviewers (PM, MON or CT), and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Study quality was assessed using a previously published quality appraisal tool[5] based on the design and performance of individual studies.

Data abstraction

Data extraction was carried out by two reviewers independently (PM, MON), using data extraction forms prepared in advance. All extracted data was cross-checked and any disagreements were resolved after discussion between the two reviewers.

The quality of included studies was measured using an assessment form developed by Hailey[6] and modified by Ho et al.,[5] which scores studies out of a maximum of 15 points based on study design (5 points) and performance (10 points). Five study performance criteria relating to issues such as patient selection, analytical methods and reporting of outcomes were scored individually to a maximum of two points depending on how these were reported in each study. Studies were then rated A to E based on the cumulative scores.

Statistical methods

For continuous variables the sample size, mean and standard deviation were required. A number of studies reported median rather than mean, and range or interquartile range rather than standard deviation. Where a median or range was reported, the mean and standard deviation, respectively, were estimated.[7] Studies that gave no information on the standard deviation or range were excluded from the meta-analysis.

Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate a pooled estimate of effect. To aid interpretation of these results and to estimate the potential effect of robot-assisted surgery applied in a new setting, 95% prediction intervals were calculated. These provide an estimate of the interval within which outcomes from a new robotic prostatectomy program would fall, based on the data seen in the studies identified in the present review.[8] In the presence of heterogeneity, this interval is wider than the 95% CI for the estimate of average effect and may be useful for service providers considering the range of likely results that can be expected on the introduction of robot-assisted surgery for radical prostatectomy. Meta-regression was used to determine if differences in outcomes could be partly explained by surgeon experience. A binary classification was used whereby a study was classified as experienced if the surgical team had completed 30 or more robot-assisted prostatectomies before commencement of the study.

For continuous variables, the WMD is reported, and binary outcomes are reported as a relative risk. Potential outliers were identified on the basis of standardized residuals that exceeded ±1.96,[9] and publication bias was assessed using a regression test for funnel plot asymmetry. The alpha level was set at 0.05 for all statistical tests.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Conflict of interest
  9. References

One randomized single-surgeon study and 50 observational studies were identified from the literature search (see Table 1 and Fig. 1). Of the observational studies included, 27 were retrospective comparisons or studies using historical comparison groups, and 23 were prospective observational studies.

figure

Figure 1. Flow diagram of study identification and inclusion.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 1. Summary of included studies
AuthorsStudy typeComparisonCountryStudy sizeNo. surgeons performing robot-assisted surgeryStudy qualitya
  1. a

    Study quality was assessed using a quality appraisal tool modified by Ho et al., 2011.[5]

Ahlering 2004[28]RetrospectiveOpenUSA1201Fair to good
Asimakopoulos 2011[18]RCTLaparoscopicItaly1121High
Ball 2004[33]ProspectiveBothUSA3412High
Barocas 2010[34]ProspectiveOpenUSA19044Good
Bolenz 2010[35]RetrospectiveBothUSA6432Poor to fair
Breyer 2010[36]ProspectiveOpenUSA978NAPoor to fair
Burgess 2006[37]RetrospectiveOpenUSA1101Fair to good
Carlsson 2010[38]ProspectiveOpenSweden17386Fair to good
Chan 2008[39]RetrospectiveOpenUSA10002Poor to fair
Chino 2009[40]RetrospectiveOpenUSA904NAGood
Coronato 2009[41]RetrospectiveOpenUSA1552Poor to fair
D'Alonzo 2009[15]RetrospectiveOpenUSA5367Fair to good
Di Pierro 2011[27]ProspectiveOpenSwitzerland1501Good
Doumerc 2010[42]ProspectiveOpenAustralia7141Good
Drouin 2009[43]RetrospectiveBothFrance2393Good
Durand 2008[44]RetrospectiveBothFrance862Fair to good
Farnham 2006[45]ProspectiveOpenUSA2791Fair to good
Ficarra 2009[29]ProspectiveOpenItaly2082High
Fracalanza 2008[46]ProspectiveOpenItaly611Fair to good
Hakimi 2009[10]RetrospectiveLaparoscopicUSA1501Good
Ham 2008[31]ProspectiveOpenSouth Korea4221Good
Hohwu 2009[47]RetrospectiveOpenSweden274NAFair to good
Hong 2010[48]ProspectiveOpenSouth Korea511Fair to good
Hu 2006[11]RetrospectiveLaparoscopicUSA6803Fair to good
Joseph 2005[23]RetrospectiveLaparoscopicUSA100NAFair to good
Kordan 2010[49]ProspectiveOpenUSA12442Fair to good
Krambeck 2009[12]RetrospectiveOpenUSA8823Good
Laurila 2009[50]RetrospectiveOpenUSA1921Fair to good
Lo 2010[26]RetrospectiveOpenHong Kong40NAPoor to fair
Loeb 2010[51]ProspectiveOpenUSA2891Poor to fair
Malcolm 2010[30]ProspectiveOpenUSA5823Good
Menon 2002[19]ProspectiveLaparoscopicUSA802Good
Miller 2007[52]ProspectiveOpenUSA162NAFair to good
Nadler 2010[17]RetrospectiveOpenUSA1001Good
Nelson 2007[53]ProspectiveOpenUSA1003NAFair to good
Ou 2009[13]RetrospectiveOpenTaiwan601Fair to good
Ploussard 2009[24]ProspectiveLaparoscopicFrance2881Fair to good
Rocco 2009[20]RetrospectiveOpenItaly3603Poor to fair
Rozet 2007[25]RetrospectiveLaparoscopicFrance2664Fair to good
Schroeck 2008[54]RetrospectiveOpenUSA7974Fair to good
Smith 2007[55]RetrospectiveOpenUSA4002Fair to good
Stranne 2010[56]ProspectiveOpenSweden1411NAGood
Tewari 2003[21]ProspectiveOpenUSA3001Good
Trabulsi 2010[22]RetrospectiveLaparoscopicUSA2501Fair to good
Trabulsi 2008[14]RetrospectiveLaparoscopicUSA240NAFair to good
Truesdale 2010[57]RetrospectiveOpenUSA3161Poor to fair
Webster 2005[58]ProspectiveOpenUSA313NAFair to good
White 2009[16]RetrospectiveOpenUSA1001Fair to good
Williams 2010[59]ProspectiveOpenUSA9501Fair to good
Wood 2007[60]ProspectiveOpenUSA117NAGood
Yi 2010[61]RetrospectiveBothSouth Korea641NAPoor to fair

Characteristics of included studies

A total of 37 studies compared robot-assisted and open surgery, nine compared robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic surgery, and five provided comparative data for robot-assisted, open and conventional laparoscopic surgery in the same study. A total of 33 of the included studies originated in the USA, with the 18 remaining studies being carried out in France, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, Australia, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Taiwan. The average sample size in the included studies was 458, ranging from 40 to 1904, with patient numbers in the robot-assisted arms ranging from 20 to 1413. Mean age, BMI and preoperative PSA levels for patients in the included studies are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Patient characteristics
OutcomeNo. studiesInterventionComparator
MeanSDMeanSD
Robot-assisted prostatectomy vs open prostatectomy     
Age (years)2760.51.861.62.9
BMI (kg/m2)1126.01.926.01.9
PSA (ng/mL)227.53.29.46.8
Robot-assisted prostatectomy vs laparoscopic prostatectomy     
Age (years)960.61.561.72.2
BMI (kg/m2)626.22.026.11.6
PSA (ng/mL)87.31.37.51.1

A total of 31 studies involved more than one surgeon in the intervention arm or failed to report surgeon numbers. A total of 62% (31/51) of studies provided information on surgeon experience; however, there were differences in how that experience was reported. The degree of surgeon experience in robot-assisted prostatectomy in the included studies ranged from surgeons carrying out their first series of cases,[10-17] to surgeons who had carried out over 300 procedures[18] using the device. Therefore, the influence of the training curve for inexperienced surgeons is included in the overall estimate of effect calculated in the meta-analysis.

Differences between how various intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were reported in the included studies were noted. A total of 12 studies (24%) reported how operation time was defined. The most common operative time definition was skin-to-skin time (8/12),[10, 14, 15, 17, 19-22] with other studies using total operating time[23-25] or alternative definitions.[11, 12] Continence was defined in 15/51 studies (29%), with 12[10, 12, 17, 19-23, 26-29] using a definition of either no leakage or the use of 0 to one pads per day, whereas three studies[18, 30, 31] used continence questionnaires. A definition of what was considered the regaining of sexual function was defined in 12/51 studies.[10, 12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29-32] This was most commonly defined as the ability to maintain an erection sufficient for intercourse with or without the help of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors. Reporting of complications varied widely, with most of the studies that provided this data including a list of intraoperative and postoperative complications recorded as part of the individual study. Some studies used a standardized approach to complications reporting, whereas others categorized complications as major or minor, or provided a list of the complications recorded.

Study quality

As most included studies were either prospective or retrospective observational studies, they generally scored ≤2 points on study design. Of the 51 studies assessed for study quality, three were rated as high quality, 14 as good quality, 25 as fair to good and nine as poor to fair quality (see Table 1).

Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy

Pooled data from 15 studies including almost 3000 patients showed that robot-assisted surgery is associated with fewer PSM for pT2 tumors (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49–0.81, P < 0.001, I2 = 28%; Table 3 and Fig. 2). This result is not consistent with the results for pT3 tumors, which show no evidence of benefit (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85–1.34, P = 0.59, I2 = 58%), using data from 15 studies including just under 1200 patients.

figure

Figure 2. Cumulative analysis of PSM rates for pT2 tumors after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy or open radical prostatectomy.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 3. Meta-analysis results: robot-assisted surgery versus open surgery
OutcomeMeasureStudiesSampleI2Effect(95% CI)P-valuePrediction interval
Operative time (min)WMD17432597.837(17, 58)0.000(−54, 129)
Hospital stay (days)        
All studiesWMD18586499.4−2(−2, −1)0.000(−4, 1)
European studiesWMD584696.2−2.1(−3.1, −1.1)0.000(−5.9, 1.6)
USA studiesWMD9378298.5−0.7(−1.2, −0.2)0.006(−2.5, 1.1)
Blood loss (mL)WMD17536698.0−564(−664, −463)0.000(−999, −129)
ComplicationsRR17638471.80.74(0.56, 1)0.047(0.27, 2.06)
TransfusionRR20924616.80.23(0.18, 0.29)0.000(0.14, 0.38)
Positive surgical margin        
pT2RR15294627.70.63(0.49, 0.81)0.000(0.35, 1.15)
pT3RR15117957.71.06(0.85, 1.34)0.591(0.51, 2.22)
Sexual functionRR9194969.81.60(1.33, 1.93)0.000(0.95, 2.71)
Urinary functionRR7182050.71.06(1.02, 1.11)0.009(0.94, 1.21)

Pooled results from nine studies with almost 2000 patients show that men who undergo robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are more likely to regain sexual function within 1 year of surgery than those undergoing open radical prostatectomy (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33–1.93, P = <0.001; Fig. 3). However, the data shows a high level of heterogeneity (I2 = 70%). For urinary function at 12 months, the results of the meta-analysis of seven studies with over 1800 patients showed a slight, but statistically significant, increase in urinary function associated with robot-assisted prostatectomy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.11, P = 0.009).

figure

Figure 3. Cumulative analysis of return of sexual function after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy or open radical prostatectomy.

Download figure to PowerPoint

In line with results reported elsewhere, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was associated with a significant decrease in estimated blood loss and transfusion rate compared with open surgery. There was a high level of heterogeneity associated with the difference in blood loss between the two procedures (I2 = 98%), reflecting the different ways this was estimated in included studies. The results for transfusion rate showed greater consistency (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.18–0.29, P < 0.001, I2 = 17%).

The risk of complications was lower for robot-assisted than for open radical prostatectomy (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–1.00, P = 0.047, I2 = 72%). Operative times for robot-assisted surgery were found to be approximately 40 min longer than for open radical prostatectomy (WMD 37 min, 95% CI 17–58, P < 0.001, I2 = 98%). The level of inconsistency between the results of the 17 studies included in the present analysis was extremely high, with one study[57] reporting statistically significant shorter operating times for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Results for the difference in mean length of hospital stay for patients after radical prostatectomy showed overall stays were shorter for patients undergoing robot-assisted surgery (WMD −1.5 days, 95% CI −2.2 to −0.9, P < 0.001). Large differences were observed between the differences in length of stay observed between USA (WMD −0.7 days, 95% CI −1.2 to −0.2, P = 0.006) and European studies (WMD −2.1 days, 95% CI −3.1 to −1.1, P < 0.001).

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic prostatectomy

No statistically significant difference between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy was observed for PSM rates (pT2 or pT3), return of sexual function, estimated blood loss or transfusion rate, complication rates, rate of conversion to open surgery or operative time (Table 4). The results from three studies reporting return of urinary function at 12 months showed a slight, yet statistically significant, increase in urinary function favoring robot-assisted surgery (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17, P = 0.013). Analysis of USA studies on their own showed a statistically significant decrease in length of stay; however, there was a high level of heterogeneity associated with this outcome (WMD −0.9 days, 95% CI −1.6 to −0.1, P = 0.022, I2 = 91%).

Table 4. Meta-analysis results: robot-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery
OutcomeMeasureStudiesSampleI2Effect(95% CI)P-valuePrediction interval
Operative time (min)WMD9202797.4−24(−53, 5)0.104(−132, 84)
Hospital stay (days)        
All studiesWMD7164986.8−0.7(−1.2, −0.1)0.027(−2.6, 1.3)
European studiesWMD476776.2−0.4(−1.4, 0.5)0.368(−4.5, 3.6)
USA studiesWMD388291.2−0.9(−1.6, −0.1)0.022(−10.2, 8.4)
Blood loss (mL)WMD9202797.9−78.0(−199, 43)0.205(−515, 359)
ComplicationsRR8191163.41.0(0.56, 1.62)0.861(0.21, 4.29)
ConversionRR7169445.00.5(0.11, 2.34)0.387(0.01, 29.21)
TransfusionRR7163438.70.7(0.31, 1.39)0.270(0.1, 4.2)
Positive surgical margin        
pT2RR577222.30.9(0.57, 1.39)0.616(0.31, 2.54)
pT3RR51620.01.1(0.69, 1.72)0.711(0.52, 2.28)
Sexual functionRR226294.61.49(0.60, 3.73)0.392NA
Urinary functionRR35120.01.1(1.02, 1.17)0.013(0.7, 1.71)

Sensitivity and subgroup analysis

Mean outcome values for robot-assisted surgery were similar across studies, comparing it with open and conventional laparoscopic surgery (Table 5). However, operative times were longer and estimated blood loss was lower in studies comparing robot-assisted surgery with open surgery.

Table 5. Mean outcome values for robot-assisted surgery
OutcomeMean outcome value
Compared with open surgeryCompared with laparoscopic surgery
Operative time (min)231209
Hospital stay (days)  
All studies2.93.1
European studies4.64.7
USA studies1.41.7
Estimated blood loss (mL)234320
Complications (%)0.120.10
Conversion to open (%)NA0.01
Transfusion (%)0.030.03
Positive surgical margin (%)  
pT20.110.12
pT30.480.35
Regaining sexual function (%)0.670.67
Regaining urinary function (%)0.940.94

In the comparison with open surgery, a single statistical outlier was identified in the meta-analyses of operative time, length of hospital stay, PSM (pT3) and sexual function. Two outliers were found in the meta-analysis of transfusion rates. Only one study was identified as an outlier more than once.[21] In the comparison with conventional laparoscopic surgery, the meta-analysis of operative time had one outlier.[22] In all cases, the removal of outliers had a small effect on the estimate of the average effect size. In the comparison with open surgery, significant publication bias was found in three outcomes: hospital stay, transfusion rates and estimated blood loss. For the first two, removal of outliers eliminated the evidence of publication bias. In the case of blood loss, which did not have any statistical outliers, there was more systematic evidence of publication bias.

Subgroup analysis was carried out for length of stay using only European studies, on the assumption that differences in the configuration of health systems in different countries would be a confounder for this outcome. When only European data were used (USA and Asian studies excluded), the mean reduction in length of stay for robot-assisted versus open surgery was 2 days (95% CI 1.2–2.8).

Meta-regression using surgeon experience as a dichotomous covariate was carried out for seven outcomes in the comparison of robot-assisted to open surgery. For the length of stay subgroups and functional outcomes, there were insufficient studies available to justify meta-regression. Surgeon experience was not a significant predictor in any of the meta-regressions and had a minor impact on the levels of heterogeneity observed.

Prediction intervals

The 95% prediction intervals for each outcome are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The only outcomes for which robot-assisted surgery offers a highly probable benefit over open surgery are for estimated blood loss and requirement for transfusion. In comparison with conventional laparoscopic surgery, there is no evidence that a beneficial effect will be observed for robot-assisted surgery in a future study based on the 95% prediction intervals.

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Conflict of interest
  9. References

Despite the high rate of publication in this area, the overall methodological quality of the evidence identified through a systematic review of the literature remains low. This is a recurring theme in systematic reviews of robot-assisted prostatectomy,[62-64] and the results of the present review highlight that this remains a major concern. The vast majority of identified studies use observational study designs, with approximately half being retrospective studies or studies that use historical controls. The risk of bias inherent in these study designs, such as recruitment and allocation bias, might lead to misrepresentation of the true effect of robot-assisted surgery. One might speculate that the direction of other types of bias (e.g. confirmation and optimism bias) might favor the robot in case series studies that report clinical outcomes after the introduction of a robot-assisted surgery program within individual institutions. In such situations, the principles of equipoise and autonomy are bound to be in conflict, as presumably the setting up of a robot-assisted surgery program would require the support of surgeons who believe that such a service is in the best interests of their patients as opposed to its effectiveness being genuinely contested.

In the comparison with open surgery, robot-assisted surgery results in improved outcomes for urinary function at 12 months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.11, P = 0.009), sexual function at 12 months (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.33–1.93, P = <0.001) and the rate of positive surgical margins for pT2 tumors (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49–00.81, P < 0.001). Although the difference observed in urinary function is of questionable clinical significance given the modest degree of benefit shown coupled with the low methodological quality of the evidence on which it is based, differences in sexual function and positive surgical margins might indicate that there are real advantages for patients whose surgery is carried out with the aid of a robot. The difficulty here is trying to ascertain the potential effect of bias on these results. In order to investigate the effect of study quality on PSM rates, the results from studies rated “high” or “good” quality were compared with those classified as “fair to good” and “poor to fair”. The results showed that using data from studies with lower methodological quality (8 studies with 1060 patients) increased the observed difference between robot-assisted surgery and open surgery (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.83). When the analysis was restricted to studies of higher methodological quality (6 studies with 1130 patients), no significant difference was observed between both surgical approaches (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.17). As the power to detect differences is reduced by excluding studies, this does not imply that no relationship exists; however, it might indicate that poorer study designs tend to overestimate rather than underestimate the effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery for this outcome. For the other outcome, where a clinically-important difference was observed (sexual function at 12 months), there was insufficient data to carry out a subgroup analysis based on study quality (5 studies with 1238 patients vs 2 studies with 312 patients).

When significant heterogeneity is observed in a meta-analysis, random effects approaches are commonly used. The computed confidence bound applies to the average effect, and often does not reflect what the treatment effect could be in a new study. In the face of such uncertainly, the use of prediction intervals is recommended rather than confidence intervals, particularly when making decisions about the introduction of the technology with a given healthcare institution. This approach has the benefit of providing a more realistic distribution of the effect sizes that could be expected after the introduction of robot-assisted surgery, given the heterogeneity observed in the available pool of evidence. The 95% prediction intervals can be used to determine the range of treatment effect that might be observed in a future study. In the comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery, it is possible for all outcomes that no effect will be observed. Compared with open surgery, other than blood loss and requirement for transfusion, all outcomes might show no treatment benefit with robot-assisted surgery. These findings reflect the heterogeneity of evidence and uncertainty in the extent of treatment benefit.

Differences between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were minimal. The quantity of pooled evidence used in this comparison was substantially less than that used for the comparison with open prostatectomy. There is also a much greater degree of similarity between the two approaches being compared, both being minimally-invasive surgical techniques. This results in a situation where not only are the actual differences likely to be lower than for the comparison with open surgery, but the available statistical power for the detection of these differences within this meta-analysis is also lower.

Given the major differences that exist between healthcare systems, it might be misleading to pool data from different countries. The high level of heterogeneity observed when USA and European data is combined might indicate that we not comparing like with like in this instance. Furthermore, earlier discharges might not always equate to better outcomes or a more efficient service.[65]

The need for standardized guidelines for reporting complications in oncological urology has been highlighted previously,[66, 67] and their absence was apparent in the present review. Reporting of complications in included studies varied widely, with most of the studies providing a list of intraoperative and postoperative complications recorded as part of the individual study. Some studies used a standardized approach to complications reporting, and others categorized complications as major or minor, or provided a list of the complications recorded. Therefore, it was not surprising that a high degree of heterogeneity was observed. Inconsistent reporting of this outcome, combined with the poor evidential quality discussed earlier, makes it difficult to draw any conclusions from the results of the meta-analysis for the difference in complication rates between robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy.

High levels of heterogeneity were seen for many of the outcomes reported. This is thought to be at least partly attributable to the poor level of consistency between the way some outcomes are defined, measured or reported combined with inherent differences that exist between studies that have been carried out in separate health systems by surgeons of differing degrees of training and experience.

Conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Conflict of interest
  9. References

Despite continued growth in the quantity of published literature relating to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, the overall methodological quality of the available evidence remains low. In addition, data on long-term outcomes, such as cancer reoccurrence and mortality, is lacking.

The majority of the evidence base is comprised of prospective or retrospective case series. This casts doubt over the reliability of the results, as these study designs carry a high risk of bias. Furthermore, the present review shows that the direction of this bias would tend to overestimate the benefits of robot-assisted surgery. In the absence of better quality evidence, it might be advisable to use prediction intervals as an adjunct to confidence intervals to estimate the likely effects of introducing robot-assisted surgery, as an analysis that takes account of where future observations are likely to fall might provide useful information for healthcare decision makers considering the introduction of a robot-assisted surgery programme.

Based on the results of the present review, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is associated with decreased rates of positive surgical margins for pT2 tumors, as well as improvements in return of sexual function within 12 months, when compared with open radical prostatectomy. Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates are also reduced, but operating times are longer. When compared with conventional laparoscopy, robot-assisted surgery was associated with shorter hospital stays for USA studies only, whereas the difference seen in urinary continence rates was marginal. All of these results must be considered in the context of the limitations of the evidence underpinning them.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Conflict of interest
  9. 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: 17081713.
  • 2
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 2009; 55: 10371063.
  • 3
    Finkelstein J, Eckersberger E, Sadri H, Taneja SS, Lepor H, Djavan B. Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: the European and US Experience. Rev. Urol. 2010; 12: 3543.
  • 4
    Goodman C. HTA 101 Introduction to Health Technology Assessment. 2004.
  • 5
    Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K et al. Robot-Assisted Surgery Compared with Open Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery: Clinical Effectiveness and Economic Analyses. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, 2011.
  • 6
    Hailey D, Ohinmaa A, Roine R. Evidence for the Benefits of Telecardiology Applications: A Systematic Review. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, Edmonton, 2004.
  • 7
    Hozo S, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2005; 5: 13.
  • 8
    Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 2009; 172: 137159.
  • 9
    Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res. Synth. Meth. 2010; 1: 112125.
  • 10
    Hakimi AA, Blitstein J, Feder M, Shapiro E, Ghavamian R. Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. Urology 2009; 73: 119123.
  • 11
    Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG et al. Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2006; 175: 541546.
  • 12
    Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ et al. Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2009; 103: 448453.
  • 13
    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: 16371642.
  • 14
    Trabulsi EJ, Linden RA, Gomella LG, McGinnis DE, Strup SE, Lallas CD. The addition of robotic surgery to an established laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program: effect on positive surgical margins. Can. J. Urol. 2008; 15: 39943999.
  • 15
    D'Alonzo RC, Gan TJ, Moul JW et al. A retrospective comparison of anesthetic management of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy. J. Clin. Anesth. 2009; 21: 322328.
  • 16
    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: 567571.
  • 17
    Nadler R, Casey J, Zhao L et al. Is the transition from open to robotic prostatectomy fair to your patients? A single-surgeon comparison with 2-year follow-up. J. Robot. Surg. 2010; 3: 201207.
  • 18
    Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2011; 58: 407417.
  • 19
    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J. Urol. 2002; 168: 945949.
  • 20
    Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S et al. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009; 104: 991995.
  • 21
    Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003; 92: 205210.
  • 22
    Trabulsi EJ, Zola JC, Gomella LG, Lallas CD. Transition from pure laparoscopic to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon institutional evolution. Urol. Oncol. 2010; 28: 8185.
  • 23
    Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR. Robot-assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int. 2005; 96: 3942.
  • 24
    Ploussard G, Xylinas E, Paul A et al. Is robot assistance affecting operating room time compared with pure retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? J. Endourol. 2009; 23: 939943.
  • 25
    Rozet F, Jaffe J, Braud G et al. A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience. J. Urol. 2007; 178: 478482.
  • 26
    Lo KL, Ng CF, Lam CNY, Hou SSM, To KF, Yip SKH. Short-term outcome of patients with robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: for localised carcinoma of prostate. Hong Kong Med. J. 2010; 1: 3135.
  • 27
    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; 1: 16.
  • 28
    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: 819822.
  • 29
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009; 104: 534539.
  • 30
    Malcolm JB, Fabrizio MD, Barone BB et al. Quality of life after open or robotic prostatectomy, cryoablation or brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2010; 5: 18221829.
  • 31
    Ham W, Park S, Kim W, Koo K, Lee Y, Choi Y. Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis based on a single surgeons experience. J. Robot. Surg. 2008; 2: 235241.
  • 32
    Trabulsi EJ, Patel J, Viscusi ER, Gomella LG, Lallas CD. Preemptive multimodal pain regimen reduces opioid analgesia for patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 5: 11221124.
  • 33
    Ball AJ, Gambill B, Fabrizio MD et al. Prospective longitudinal comparative study of early health-related 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: 723731.
  • 34
    Barocas DA, Salem S, Kordan Y 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: 990996.
  • 35
    Bolenz C, Gupta A, Hotze T et al. Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur. Urol. 2010; 57: 453458.
  • 36
    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: 17341738.
  • 37
    Burgess SV, Atug F, Castle EP, Davis R, Thomas R. Cost analysis of radical retropubic, perineal, and robotic prostatectomy. J. Endourol. 2006; 20: 827830.
  • 38
    Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology 2010; 75: 10921097.
  • 39
    Chan RC, Barocas DA, Chang SS et al. Effect of a large prostate gland on open and robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008; 101: 11401144.
  • 40
    Chino J, Schroeck FR, Sun L et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is not associated with early postoperative radiation therapy. BJU Int. 2009; 104: 14961500.
  • 41
    Coronato E, Harmon J, Ginsberg P et al. A multi-institutional comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer. J. Robot. Surg. 2009; 3: 175178.
  • 42
    Doumerc N, Yuen C, Savdie R, Rahman B, Rasiah KK, Pe BR et al. Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for a single surgeon over 3 years. BJU Int. 2010; 106: 378384.
  • 43
    Drouin SJ, Vaessen C, Hupertan V 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: 599605.
  • 44
    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: 6067.
  • 45
    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: 360363.
  • 46
    Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S 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: 11451149.
  • 47
    Hohwu L, Akre O, Pedersen KV, Jonsson M, Nielsen CV, Gustafsson O. Open retropubic prostatectomy versus robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a comparison of length of sick leave. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 2009; 43: 259264.
  • 48
    Hong JY, Kim JY, Choi YD, Rha KH, Yoon SJ, Kil HK. Incidence of venous gas embolism during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is lower than that during radical retropubic prostatectomy. Br. J. Anaesth. 2010; 105: 777781.
  • 49
    Kordan Y, Barocas DA, Altamar HO et al. Comparison of transfusion requirements between open and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010; 106: 10361040.
  • 50
    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: 529533.
  • 51
    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: 14461449.
  • 52
    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): 854858.
  • 53
    Nelson B, Kaufman M, Broughton G et al. Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2007; 177: 929931.
  • 54
    Schroeck FR, Sun L, Freedland SJ et al. Comparison of prostate-specific antigen recurrence-free survival in a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing either radical retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2008; 102: 2832.
  • 55
    Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS 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: 23852389.
  • 56
    Stranne J, Johansson E, Nilsson A et al. Inguinal hernia after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: results from a randomized setting and a nonrandomized setting. Eur. Urol. 2010; 58: 719726.
  • 57
    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 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy in the modern era. J. Endourol. 2010; 7: 10551060.
  • 58
    Webster TM, Herrell SD, Chang SS et al. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain. J. Urol. 2005; 174: 912914.
  • 59
    Williams SB, Chen M-H, D'Amico AV et al. Radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: likelihood of positive surgical margin(s). Urology 2010; 76: 10971101.
  • 60
    Wood DP, Schulte R, Dunn RL et al. Short-term health outcome differences between robotic and conventional radical prostatectomy. Urology 2007; 70: 945949.
  • 61
    Yi JS, Kwak C, Kim HH, Ku JH. Surgical clip-related complications after radical prostatectomy. Korean J. Urol. 2010; 51: 683687.
  • 62
    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: 930937.
  • 63
    Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Ragona M, Artibani W. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur. Urol. 2006; 51: 4556.
  • 64
    Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Reporting Oncologic Outcome After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2012; 62: 382404.
  • 65
    OECD. Health at a Glance: Europe 2010. 2010.
  • 66
    Donat SM. Standards for surgical complication reporting in urologic oncology: time for a change. Urology 2007; 69: 221225.
  • 67
    Hakimi AA, Faleck DM, Sobey S et al. Assessment of complication and functional outcome reporting in the minimally invasive prostatectomy literature from 2006 to the present. BJU Int. 2012; 109: 2630.