Table 5: Consistency of Results for Outcomes of Prostatectomy (cont’d).
| Technology | Outcomes (No. Studies)*,§ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oncological Factors | Long-Term Outcomes | |||
| Positive Surgical Margins | Urinary Continence | Erectile Function | ||
| Robotic vs. Laparoscopy | + or +/- (4) | + or = (4) | + or = (3) | |
| Ficarra [2009]± | +/- | = | + | |
| Hakimi [2009] | = | = | = | |
| Trabulsi [2008] | + | ? | ? | |
| Ploussard [2009] | ? | ? | ? | |
| Srinualnad [2008] | + | +¥ | ? | |
| Ball [2006] | ? | +¥ | +¥ | |
| Robotic vs. Retropubic | = (10) | + (7) | + (5) | |
| Carlsson [2010] | ? | + | ? | |
| Lo [2010] | = | = | ? | |
| D’Alonzo [2009] | ? | ? | ? | |
| Ficarra [2009]± | + | +/- | + | |
| Ficarra [2009a] | = | + | + | |
| Laurila [2009] | = | ? | ? | |
| Ou [2009] | - | + | +¥ | |
| Polcari [2009] | ? | ? | ? | |
| Rocco [2009] | = | + | + | |
| White [2009] | + | ? | ? | |
| Wood [2007] | = | ? | ? | |
| Yates [2009] | ? | ? | ? | |
| Zorn [2009] | ? | ? | ? | |
| Weizer [2010] | = | ? | ? | |
| Hohwu [2009] | ? | ? | ? | |
| O’Malley [2006] | + | ? | ? | |
| Ball [2006] | ? | -¥ | +¥ | |
+/- evidence favouring both technologies.
evidence not provided.
evidence that showed no difference between technologies.
evidence favouring the technology.
evidence not supportive of the technology compared to the referent technology, e.g. laparoscopy or retropubic as the referent groups.
Results refer to those that were reported as statistically significant.
Systematic review. Refers to the overall trend in results, regardless of statistical significance.
For study completeness, outcome information was also included without a statistical test for difference, especially if the magnitude of the difference was substantial.
Positive surgical margins is not specific to tumour stage, except for Hakimi et al. (2009), which refers to stage II disease.
Note: Drouin et al. (2009) was excluded.