Skip to main content
. 2010 Dec 1;10(27):1–118.
Robotics Compared to Retropubic: Prostate Cancer
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks*
(95% CI)
Relative effect (95% CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments**
Assumed risk Corresponding risk
Retropubic Robotic
Erectile Dysfunction Study population OR 0.44
(0.25 to 0.79)
1039 (4 studies) □□⊖⊖
low1,2
RB > RP
452 per 1000 266 per 1000 (171 to 395)
Medium risk population
506 per 1000 311 per 1000 (204 to 447)
Positive Surgical Margins Study population OR 0.60
(0.44 to 0.82)
1308 (9 studies) □□⊖⊖
low3
RB > RP
183 per 1000 118 per 1000 (90 to 155)
Medium risk population
104 per 1000 65 per 1000 (49 to 87)
Urinary Incontinence Study population OR 0.42
(0.1 to 1.85)
1224 (3 studies) □⊖⊖⊖
low4,5,6
n/a
86 per 1000 38 per 1000 (9 to 148)
Medium risk population
120 per 1000 54 per 1000 (13 to 201)
Length of Hospitalization The mean length of hospitalization in the intervention groups was 0.23 lower (0.44 to 0.02 lower) 802 (3 studies) □□⊖⊖
low
RB > RP
Blood Loss The mean blood loss in the intervention groups was 652.86 lower (819.13 to 486.6 lower) 802 (3 studies) □□⊖⊖
low
RB > RP
Transfusions Study population OR 0.14
(0.05 to 0.36)
2852 (7 studies) □□⊖⊖
low2
RB > RP
223 per 1000 39 per 1000 (14 to 94)
Medium risk population
167 per 1000 27 per 1000 (10 to 67)
Operation Time The mean operation time in the intervention groups was 0.72 higher (0.01 to 1.44 higher) 842 (4 studies) □□⊖⊖
low2
RB < RP
Complications Study population OR 0.46 (0.15 to 1.42) 2212 (4 studies) □⊖⊖⊖
very low2,7
n/a
382 per 1000 221 per 1000 (85 to 467)
Medium risk population
260 per 1000 139 per 1000 (50 to 333)
Post-Operative Pain The mean post-operative pain in the intervention groups was 8.55 lower (15.62 to 1.47 lower) 1055 (3 studies) □□⊖⊖
low
RB > RP
Catheterization Duration The mean catheterization duration in the intervention groups was 1.5 lower (2.77 to 0.23 lower) 60 (1 study) □□⊖⊖
low
RB > RP
Anastomotic Stricture Study population OR 0.25
(0.05 to 1.23)
2794 (3 studies) □□⊖⊖
low
n/a
40 per 1000 10 per 1000 (2 to 49)
Medium risk population
45 per 1000 12 per 1000 (2 to 55)
*

The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

**

RB > RP indicates that robotics had a more favourable profile for the specific outcome; RB < RP indicates robotics had a less favourable profile for the specific outcome.

CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio; RB: Robotics; RP: Retropubic.

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence

High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.

Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1

Measurement of erectile dysfunction was not consistent across studies.

2

Level of surgeon skill differed across studies.

3

Differences in pathology review across studies, some of which are unknown.

4

Measurement of urinary continence was measured and characterized inconsistently.

5

Experienced surgeons had a more favourable profile for robotic surgery.

6

Stage difference in one study, with more advanced tumours in the retropubic surgery group.

7

Differences in the reporting of complications may have contributed to the inconsistency.