Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Investigative and Clinical Urology logoLink to Investigative and Clinical Urology
. 2021 Oct 27;62(6):631–640. doi: 10.4111/icu.20210297

Robotic-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy: Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Simone Scarcella 1,*, Daniele Castellani 1,*,✉, Vineet Gauhar 2, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh 3, Carlo Giulioni 1, Pietro Piazza 4, Carlo Andrea Bravi 5,6,7, Ruben De Groote 5, Geert De Naeyer 5, Stefano Puliatti 8, Andrea Benedetto Galosi 1, Alexandre Mottrie 5,6
PMCID: PMC8566792  PMID: 34729963

Abstract

Purpose

To review safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) compared to open simple prostatectomy (OP).

Materials and Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed to assess the differences in perioperative course and functional outcomes in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia and surgical indication. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel Method and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Perioperative course and functional outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD), 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two-tailed and the significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

Eight studies were accepted. Meta-analysis showed significantly longer surgical time (MD, 43.72; 95% CI, 30.57–56.88; p<0.00001) with a significantly lower estimated blood loss (MD, -563.20; 95% CI, −739.95 to −386.46; p<0.00001) and shorter postoperative stay (MD, −2.85; 95% CI, −3.72 to −1.99; p<0.00001) in RASP. Catheterization time did not differ (MD, 0.65; 95% CI, −2.17 to 3.48; p=0.65). The risk of blood transfusion was significantly higher in OP (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17–0.33; p<0.00001). The risk of recatheterization (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.32–11.93; p=0.47), postoperative urinary infections (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.23–3.51; p=0.87) and 30-day readmission rate (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.51; p=0.86) did not differ. At 3-month follow-up, functional outcomes were similar.

Conclusions

RASP demonstrated a better perioperative outcome and equal early functional outcomes as compared to OP. These findings should be balanced against the longer operative time and higher cost of robotic surgery.

Keywords: Patient outcome assessment, Postoperative complications, Prostatectomy, Prostatic hyperplasia, Robotic surgical procedures

Graphical Abstract

graphic file with name icu-62-631-abf001.jpg

INTRODUCTION

Open simple prostatectomy (OP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) was first described by Fuller in 1885 and Freyer in 1900 [1]. Even after the introduction of monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), OP remained the gold standard surgical therapy in prostate volume larger than 80 mL for more than 50 years [1]. Bipolar and laser energies have been introduced in the ‘90 to decrease early morbidity of traditional surgery (bleeding, catheterization time, and postoperative stay), challenging the role of monopolar TURP and OP as the reference standard. Holmium and Thulium laser enucleation of the prostate has been demonstrated to be size-independent, minimally invasive procedures and promising competitors of OP in patients with large volume prostates [2,3]. Meanwhile, the surgical armamentarium for the treatment of BPH has been implemented by the introduction of laparoscopic and robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP). As demonstrated in a large series with lower transfusion rate and shorter postoperative stay, RASP is a very attractive option especially in patients with concomitant bladder diverticula and stones [4]. In the present study, we aimed to review the safety and efficacy of RASP as compared to OP in patients with symptomatic BPH and surgical indications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Aim of the review and literature search

We aimed to perform a systematic review to assess the differences in the perioperative and postoperative period (surgical time, estimated blood, rate of complications), and functional outcomes after RASP versus OP for symptomatic BPH. Functional outcomes were measured by gathering the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) score, maximum flow rate (Qmax), and post-voiding residual (PVR) during follow-up. This systematic review was performed according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method [5]. A comprehensive literature search was performed on April 10, 2021, using PubMed Central, Embase and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL). Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and Boolean operators were used:“robotic” OR “open” AND “(prostatectomy) AND (benign prostatic hyperplasia OR BPH)”. No date limits were imposed. Non-English, animal, and pediatric studies were also excluded. There was no clinical justification for excluding non-English studies but this relied only on authors’ language skills. Additional articles were sought from the reference lists of the included articles. The study protocol was registered on OSF registries (registration DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/A6C93). This study does not require ethical approval because it is a systematic review.

2. Selection criteria

The PICOS (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study type) model was used to frame and answer the clinical question: (1) P: patients with BPH surgical indication; (2) Intervention: patients undergoing RASP; (3) Comparison: patients undergoing OP; (4) Outcome: perioperative and functional outcomes; and (5) Study type: randomized clinical trials, prospective, and retrospective studies. Only studies comparing both procedures were accepted. Patients were assigned in two groups according to the type of surgery (robotic vs. open). We gathered the following perioperative data: surgical time; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion; postoperative lower urinary tract infection; the number of days to trial off catheter and length of hospital stay after surgery and readmission within 30 days. We also sought the following outcomes: IPSS, Qmax, and PVR at the last follow-up visit.

3. Study screening and selection

All retrieved records were screened by two independent authors (DC and SS) through Covidence Systematic Review Management® (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia). Discrepancies were fixed by discussion. Studies were included based on PICOS eligibility criteria. Case reports, meeting abstracts, editorials, single series, and letters to editors were rejected. The full text of the screened papers was selected if found appropriate to the subject of this review. The search was further expanded by performing a manual search based on the references of the full-text relevant papers.

4. Statistical analysis

We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes after BPH surgery among men undergoing RASP as compared to traditional OP. Meta-analysis was performed when two or more studies were reporting the same outcomes under the same definition. The incidences of complications were pooled using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel method with the random effect model and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and p-values. Unadjusted estimates were used. OR of less than one indicate a lower risk of complications in patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery. Perioperative course and functional outcomes were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD) with a fixed effect, 95% CI, and p-values. Analyses were two-tailed and the significance was set at p<0.05 and a 95% CI. Study heterogeneity was assessed utilizing the I2 value. Substantial heterogeneity was defined as an I2 value >50%. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 software by Cochrane Collaboration. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, using ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) for non-randomized studies [6].

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 883 papers. After removing 22 duplicates, screening against title and abstract excluded 833 papers as the content was unrelated to this review. Full text of the remaining 28 papers was evaluated per eligibility and 20 studies were excluded (3 letters to editor, 15 reviews, 2 non-English papers). Finally, 8 studies were accepted and included in the quantitative analysis [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. Seven studies were retrospective [7,8,9,10,11,13,14] and one was prospective [12]. All were non-randomized. Fig. 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the study. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

1. Study characteristics

There were 5,848 patients involved in 8 studies: 4,667 had OP and 1,181 had a RASP. However, two large studies were population-based cohort studies reporting mainly cost-analysis and postoperative complications [8,13]. Table 1 shows the characteristics of the studies included in this meta-analysis.

Table 1. Characteristics of included studies comparing robotic vs. open simple prostatectomy.

Reference Robotic platform Continent/country Type of study Type of robotic approach Enrolled patients, robotic vs. open (total) Prostate volume (mL), robotic vs. open Age (y), robotic vs. open Specimen weight (g), robotic vs. open Length of follow-up (mo)
Mourmouris et al., 2019 [12] Da Vinci Si Europe Prospective, non-randomized Transperitoneal, transvescical 26 vs. 15 (41) 115.33±38.4 vs. 101.86±32.4 70.46±4.76 vs. 66.73±8.63 115.33±38.49 vs. 101.86±32.47 3
Sorokin et al., 2017 [14] Da Vinci Si USA Retrospective Transperitoneal, transvescical 64 vs. 103 (167) 136.2±46.6 vs. 147.3±50.1 68.8±8.0 vs. 68.7±7.5 81.3±36.0 vs. 103.8±49.1 3
Nestler et al., 2019 [11] Da Vinci Si Europe Retrospective Not reported 35 vs. 35 (70) 94.5 (82–136) vs. 95 (84–132) 70.9 (66.5–73.1) vs. 70.6 (66.5–73.1) Not reported 3
Dotzauer et al., 2021 [9] Da Vinci Xi Europe Retrospective Transperitoneal, transvescical 103 vs. 31 (134) 127±32 vs. 119±25 71±7.39 vs. 72±6.9 Not reported 3
Bhanvadia et al., 2021 [8] Da Vinci Xi Europe Retrospective Not reported 704 vs. 2,551 (3,255) Not reported 67.8±8.0 vs. 71.0±8.1 Not reported Not reported
Hoy et al., 2015 [10] Da Vinci Xi USA Retrospective Transperitoneal with prostatic capsulotomy 4 vs. 28 (32) 239±49.8 vs. 180±54.7 69.3±2.9 vs. 75.18±6.4 123.6±40.8 vs. 122.9±53.6 3
Ravivarapu et al., 2021 [13] Da Vinci Xi USA Retrospective Not reported 216 vs. 1,881 (2,097) Not reported 67.5±7.4 vs. 66.3±7.9 Not reported Not reported
Cho et al., 2021 [7] Not reported Asia Retrospective Transperitoneal, transvescica 29 vs. 23 (52) 108.2±25.0 vs. 118.6±21.7 70.5±7.9 vs. 70.7±6.0 58.7±27.6 vs. 72.5±39.2 3
Open in a new tab

Values are presented as number only, mean±standard deviation, or median (interquartile range).

2. Quality assessment

Supplementary Fig. shows the details of quality assessment, as measured by the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. Five studies demonstrated a critical overall risk of bias and the remaining three had moderate risk of bias. The most common risk factors for quality assessment were the risk of bias in the selection of participants and confounding, followed by bias due to missing data as most of the studies are retrospective.

3. Perioperative course

Data from seven available studies (290 patients in the robotic vs. 258 in the open group) showed a significantly longer operative time in the robotic-assisted group (MD, 43.72; 95% CI, 30.57–56.88; p<0.00001) (Fig. 2A). Data on two studies of 166 patients (107 in the robotic group) showed a significantly lower estimated blood loss in the robotic group (MD, −563.20; 95% CI, −739.95 to −386.46; p<0.00001) (Fig. 2B). Data from six studies of 464 patients (257 in the robotic group) showed no difference in postoperative catheterization time (MD, 0.65; 95% CI, −2.17 to 3.48; p=0.65) (Fig. 2C).

Fig. 2. Meta-analysis of (A) operative time (min), (B) blood loss (mL), and (C) postoperative catheterization time (d). SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; df, degree of freedom.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Data from five studies of 3,699 patients (936 in the robotic group) showed a significantly shorter postoperative stay in the robotic group (MD, −2.85; 95% CI, −3.72 to −1.99; p<0.00001) (Fig. 3A). Study heterogeneity was not significant in estimated blood loss (I2=0%). Study heterogeneity was significant in surgical time (I2=83%), postoperative catheterization time (I2=97%), and length of stay (I2=94%).

Fig. 3. Meta-analysis of (A) postoperative stay (d), (B) blood transfusion rate, and (C) postoperative catheterization rate. SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; df, degree of freedom.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

4. Postoperative complications

Data from seven studies of 3,751 patients (965 in the robotic group) showed a significant risk of blood transfusion in the open group (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.17–0.33; p<0.00001) (Fig. 3B). Study heterogeneity was not significant (I2=0%). Data from three studies including 245 patients (164 in the robotic group) showed no difference in the risk of re-catheterization between the two groups (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 0.32–11.93; p=0.47) (Fig. 3C). Study heterogeneity was not significant (I2=28%). Data from three studies including 3,141 patients (836 in the robotic group) showed no difference in the risk of postoperative urinary infections (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.23–3.51; p=0.87) (Fig. 4A). Study heterogeneity was not significant (I2=23%). Data from four studies of 2,333 (358 in the robotic group) showed no difference in the 30-day readmission rate between the two groups (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.51; p=0.86) (Fig. 4B). Study heterogeneity was not significant (I2=0%).

Fig. 4. Meta-analysis of (A) urinary tract infection and (B) 30-day readmission rate. SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; df, degree of freedom.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

5. Functional outcomes

Fig. 5 shows meta-analysis of functional outcomes. Data from three studies of 260 patients (119 in the robotic group) describing postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms and objective voiding parameters at 3 months showed no difference between the two groups in the mean IPSS score (MD, 0.43; 95% CI, −1.36 to 2.23; p=0.64), PVR (MD, −0.58; 95% CI,−13.54 to 12.39; p=0.93) and Qmax (MD, 0.97; 95% CI, −3.52 to 5.45; p=0.67). Study heterogeneity was substantial in all outcomes (I2=66%, 59%, and 79%, respectively).

Fig. 5. Meta-analysis of 3-month functional outcomes. (A) IPSS. (B) Post-voiding urine residual (mL). (C) Maximum flow rate (mL/s). IPSS, International Prostate Symptom Score; SD, standard deviation; CI, confidence interval; df, degree of freedom.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

DISCUSSION

OP has stood the test of time, remaining the surgical standard for symptomatic BPH patients with large prostatic glands and concurrent bladder stones and/or diverticula. Since the introduction of the precursor of the modern resectoscope in 1932 by Stern and McCarthy [1], new minimally invasive transurethral procedures have been introduced to challenge the morbidity of OP, showing a better safety profile (lower transfusion rate, shorter catheter time, and hospital stay) and equivalent functional outcomes as compared to OP [3,15,16,17]. Indeed, the surgical management of BPH patients has been stratified according to prostate size with an increased range of options thanks to the emergence of minimally invasive surgical options. According to international guidelines, OP, holmium laser and bipolar enucleation of the prostate are considered current standard/first choice in men with a prostate volume larger than 80 mL [18]. Sotelo et al. [19] described in 2008 the first series of RASP using the 4-arm da Vinci® Surgical System (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) with a 6 port transperitoneal approach. They demonstrated that the EndoWrist® (Intuitive, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) of the robotic instrument facilitated hemostatic figure-of-8 sutures to control the main prostatic vessels, resulting in less intraoperative blood loss [19]. Since then, several series have been published reporting promising results thanks to its ergonomic advantage over pure laparoscopy, and its shorter learning curve as compared to laparoscopic simple prostatectomy [20,21,22]. With the increasing number of robotic platforms installed worldwide and the growing robotic procedures in oncological urology, RASP could represent a logical next step also for the treatment of large benign prostatic enlargement. This assumption is mainly related to the fact OP is associated with relatively high morbidity. The results of our metaanalyses regarding the perioperative course confirmed the superiority of RASP in intraoperative blood loss and the need for blood transfusions that were significantly higher in the OP group. This is related to the robotic approach that allows a blunt dissection of the adenoma with reduced intraoperative venous bleeding, thanks also to the carbon dioxide compression. Furthermore, the robotic approach facilitates precise hemostasis with both electro-cautery and suturing under an enhanced three-dimensional view by accurately identifying the exact site of bleeding and precise reconstruction of the prostatic bed [19,20]. Although the robotic approach was associated with a longer operative time, this may not be clinically significant. More importantly, the advantages of RASP in bleeding control converted into a shorter hospital stay. A similar rate of postoperative urinary tract infections, risk of re-catheterization and 30-day readmission rate strengthens the odds in favor of RASP over OP.

The advantages of RASP in terms of lower length of stay and need for blood transfusion should be balanced against cost. Cost-effectiveness analysis is a complex matter that is subject to several issues among different healthcare systems. Bhanvadia et al. [8] reported the largest population-based analysis of the cost of 3,255 patients who underwent RASP (n=704) or OP (n=2,551). The authors showed that despite a lower rate of postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay, RASP was associated with a mean of US $1,734 in additional total hospitalization costs compared to OP. They also found that increasing length of stay was associated with an additional cost of $1,687 per day. Thus, the length of stay of RASP needs to be 3 to 4 days shorter than OP to offset the cost of robotic utilization, but the mean hospital stay of RASP was 2.2±1.9 days as compared to 4.7±3.6 days of OP. Our findings confirm that the MD in postoperative stay in favor of RASP was 2.5 days, thus lower than expected 3 to 4 days. Faster recovery may be enhanced with better postoperative pain control and early catheter removal. The single port robotic approach has been introduced to further decrease the morbidity of RASP and it might be the way to decrease the postoperative stay and consequently the total cost of RASP. Steinberg et al. [23] first described a series of 10 men undergoing single-port RASP. They found the procedure feasible, and no patients required conversion to a multi-port robotic platform or open approach. Furthermore, no procedure necessitated the placement of additional assistant ports. No complications occurred. Interestingly, the catheter was removed in the first postoperative day in 9 patients and 8 of them were able to void and were discharged home on the same day [23]. The same group compared two groups of patients undergoing single-port versus multiport RASP. The single-port procedure was associated with 50% decrease in the post-operative opioid use. Still, 44% of single-port RASP patients did not required any narcotics postoperatively as compared to 19% in the multiport group (p=0.036) [24]. Kaouk et al. [25] also published a series of 10 patients undergoing single port RASP. All procedures were completed without the need of additional port placement. Patients were discharged after a median stay of only 19 hours (interquartile range, 17–28 h) [25]. Therefore, additional cost-saving might be associated with faster convalescence and earlier return to work after single-port RASP. Further prospective and comparative studies are needed to prove this hypothesis.

Functional outcomes evaluation and comparison are of paramount importance after BPH surgery. In this systematic review we considered three pivotal outcomes: IPSS, PVR, and Qmax. We found no differences regarding early mean IPSS score, PVR, and Qmax. Long-term follow-up are indeed required, even if single case series of RASP with 12-month follow-up demonstrated durable functional outcomes [26].

Our work is not devoid of limitations. First of all, the absence of randomized controlled trials comparing these two surgical approaches. The second drawback is represented by the retrospective nature of the studies included, characterized by a limited number of patients evaluated and with selection bias due to the choice of the technique and a short follow-up time of only 3-month. Third, this review was limited to English-only studies and this might be a bias. However, it has recently been demonstrated that exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews had a minimal effect on overall conclusions [27,28]. Fourth, we used unadjusted estimates from non-randomized studies since we did not consider baseline differences and confounders. Finally, since RASP has been adopted since 2008, its application is limited mainly to referral robotic centers.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review pointed out that RASP had a better safety profile as compared to OP, with lower intraoperative blood loss and transfusion rate. Despite similar postoperative catheterization times, RASP demonstrated significantly shorter postoperative stay with comparable postoperative morbidity (catheterization, urinary infections, and readmission). In terms of early functional outcomes, both procedures showed comparable results. These findings should be taken with caution because critical overall risk of bias was found in five studies and the remaining three had a moderate risk of bias. Implementation of RASP in centers with established robotic programs will probably make this approach attractive. RASP is currently an investigational technique due to the lack of large sample size randomized controlled studies. Longer follow-up is mandatory to evaluate the long-term efficacy of this approach and the exact rate of reintervention.

Footnotes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The authors have nothing to disclose.

AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS:
  • Research conception and design: Daniele Castellani and Simone Scarcella.
  • Statistical analysis: Daniele Castellani.
  • Data analysis and interpretation: Carlo Andrea Bravi, Vineet Gauhar, Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh, Pietro Piazza, Ruben De Groote, Geert De Naeyer, and Stefano Puliatti.
  • Drafting of the manuscript: Daniele Castellani, Simone Scarcella, and Carlo Giulioni.
  • Critical revision of the manuscript: Andrea Benedetto Galosi and Alexandre Mottrie.
  • Supervision: Andrea Benedetto Galosi.
  • Approval of the final manuscript: all authors.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Supplementary material can be found via https://doi.org/10.4111/icu.20210297.

Supplementary Fig.

Risk Of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS I). (A) Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. (B) Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

icu-62-631-s001.pdf (32.8KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Tubaro A, de Nunzio C. The current role of open surgery in BPH. EAU-EBU Update Ser. 2006;4:191–201. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Castellani D, Pirola GM, Pacchetti A, Saredi G, Dellabella M. State of the art of thulium laser enucleation and vapoenucleation of the prostate: a systematic review. Urology. 2020;136:19–34. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jones P, Alzweri L, Rai BP, Somani BK, Bates C, Aboumarzouk OM. Holmium laser enucleation versus simple prostatectomy for treating large prostates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol. 2016;14:50–58. doi: 10.1016/j.aju.2015.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Holden M, Parsons JK. Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy: an overview. Urol Clin North Am. 2016;43:385–391. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2016.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cho JM, Moon KT, Lee JH, Choi JD, Kang JY, Yoo TK. Open simple prostatectomy and robotic simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparison of safety and efficacy. Prostate Int. 2021;9:101–106. doi: 10.1016/j.prnil.2020.11.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bhanvadia R, Ashbrook C, Gahan J, Mauck R, Bagrodia A, Margulis V, et al. Perioperative outcomes and cost of robotic vs open simple prostatectomy in the modern robotic era: results from the National Inpatient Sample. BJU Int. 2021;128:168–177. doi: 10.1111/bju.15258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dotzauer R, La Torre A, Thomas A, Brandt MP, Böhm K, Mager R, et al. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a single-center comparison. World J Urol. 2021;39:149–156. doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03168-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hoy NY, Van Zyl S, St Martin BA. Initial Canadian experience with robotic simple prostatectomy: case series and literature review. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:E626–E630. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nestler S, Bach T, Herrmann T, Jutzi S, Roos FC, Hampel C, et al. Surgical treatment of large volume prostates: a matched pair analysis comparing the open, endoscopic (ThuVEP) and robotic approach. World J Urol. 2019;37:1927–1931. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2585-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mourmouris P, Keskin SM, Skolarikos A, Argun OB, Karagiannis AA, Tufek I, et al. A prospective comparative analysis of robot-assisted vs open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia. BJU Int. 2019;123:313–317. doi: 10.1111/bju.14531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ravivarapu KT, Omidele O, Pfail J, Tomer N, Small AC, Palese MA. Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy versus open simple prostatectomy: a New York statewide analysis of early adoption and outcomes between 2009 and 2017. J Robot Surg. 2021;15:627–633. doi: 10.1007/s11701-020-01152-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Sorokin I, Sundaram V, Singla N, Walker J, Margulis V, Roehrborn C, et al. Robot-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large glands: a propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and short-term outcomes. J Endourol. 2017;31:1164–1169. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0489. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li S, Zeng XT, Ruan XL, Weng H, Liu TZ, Wang X, et al. Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e101615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Elkoushy MA, Elhilali MM. Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia larger than 100 ml: simple open enucleation versus transurethral laser prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17:44. doi: 10.1007/s11934-016-0601-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lin Y, Wu X, Xu A, Ren R, Zhou X, Wen Y, et al. Transurethral enucleation of the prostate versus transvesical open prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Urol. 2016;34:1207–1219. doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1735-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gravas S, Cornu JN, Gacci M, Gratzke C, Herrmann TRW, Mamoulakis C, et al. EAU guidelines on management of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), incl. benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) [Internet] Arnhem: European Association of Urology; 2020. [cited 2021 Jul 27]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-on-Non-Neurogenic-Male-LUTS-incl.-BPO-2020.pdf . [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O, Garcia A, Banda E, Miranda M, et al. Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179:513–515. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.09.065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Autorino R, Zargar H, Mariano MB, Sanchez-Salas R, Sotelo RJ, Chlosta PL, et al. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy: a European-American multi-institutional analysis. Eur Urol. 2015;68:86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.11.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Johnson B, Sorokin I, Singla N, Roehrborn C, Gahan JC. Determining the learning curve for robot-assisted simple prostatectomy in surgeons familiar with robotic surgery. J Endourol. 2018;32:865–870. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shah AA, Bandari J, Pelzman D, Davies BJ, Jacobs BL. Diffusion and adoption of the surgical robot in urology. Transl Androl Urol. 2021;10:2151–2157. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.11.33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Steinberg RL, Passoni N, Garbens A, Johnson BA, Gahan JC. Initial experience with extraperitoneal robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy using the da Vinci SP surgical system. J Robot Surg. 2020;14:601–607. doi: 10.1007/s11701-019-01029-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ganesan V, Steinberg RL, Garbens A, Trivedi H, Sorokin I, Roehrborn CA, et al. Single-port robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy is associated with decreased post-operative narcotic use in a propensity score matched analysis. J Robot Surg. 2021 Apr 10; doi: 10.1007/s11701-021-01236-1. [Epub] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kaouk J, Sawczyn G, Wilson C, Aminsharifi A, Fareed K, Garisto J, et al. Single-port percutaneous transvesical simple prostatectomy using the SP robotic system: initial clinical experience. Urology. 2020;141:173–177. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.02.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kordan Y, Canda AE, Köseoğlu E, Balbay D, Laguna MP, de la Rosette J. Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;9:1798. doi: 10.3390/jcm9061798. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, Moulton K, Clark M, Fiander M, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28:138–144. doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nussbaumer-Streit B, Klerings I, Dobrescu AI, Persad E, Stevens A, Garritty C, et al. Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:42–54. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Fig.

Risk Of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS I). (A) Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies. (B) Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

icu-62-631-s001.pdf (32.8KB, pdf)

Articles from Investigative and Clinical Urology are provided here courtesy of Korean Urological Association

RESOURCES