Bones are the third most common location for solid tumor metastasis affecting up to 10% of patients with solid tumors. When the spine is involved, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are frequently affected. Access to spinal lesions can be through minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or traditional open surgery (OS). This study aims to determine which method provides an advantage. Following the PRIS-MA (Preferred Inventory for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compare MIS with OS in patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were analyzed using Review Manager ver. 5.3 (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). Ten studies were included. Operative time was similar among groups at -35.23 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], -73.36 to 2.91 minutes; p=0.07). Intraoperative bleeding was lower in MIS at -562.59 mL (95% CI, -776.97 to -348.20 mL; p<0.00001). OS procedures had higher odds of requiring blood transfusions at 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.45; p<0.00001). Both approaches instrumented similar numbers of levels at -0.05 levels (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.66 levels; p=0.89). We observed a decreased need for postoperative bed rest at -1.60 days (95% CI, -2.46 to -0.74 days; p=0.0003), a shorter length of stay at -3.08 days (95% CI, -4.50 to -1.66 days; p=0.001), and decreased odds of complications at 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; p=0.03) in the MIS group. Both approaches revealed similar reintervention rates at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.15 to 2.84; p=0.57), effective rates of reducing metastasis-related pain at -0.74 (95% CI, -2.41 to 0.94; p=0.39), and comparable scores of the Tokuhashi scale at -0.52 (95% CI, -2.08 to 1.05; p=0.41), Frankel scale at 1.00 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.68; p=1.0), and American Spinal Injury Association Scale at 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.37; p=0.19). MIS appears to provide advantages over OS. Larger and prospective studies should fully detail the role of MIS as a treatment for spine metastasis.

No abstract

Context Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men; robotic prostatectomy has cemented itself as part of the standard of care. Since its approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018, the SP console's application has been increasingly studied and compared with the multiport (MP) robotic approach. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines and PROSPERO registration CRD42021228744, a systematic review was performed in April 2021 on single‐port robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomies (SP‐RARPs) compared to MP. Outcomes of interest were operative time, bleeding, complications, analgesic use, and postoperative continence, and erectile function. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3. Results Seven studies were included, of which six studies met the inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis, totalling 1068 patients, out of which 324 underwent SP‐RARP and 744 underwent MP‐RARP. No differences were found in baseline characteristics such as age, body mass index, prostatic‐specific antigen, or stage. No differences in blood loss—15.77 mL [−42.44, 10.89], p = 0.25, operative time 3.93 min [−4.12, 11.98], p = 0.34, or positive surgical margins, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.78 [0.55, 1.10], p = 0.15—were found. Length of stay was significantly shorter in SP −0.94 days [−1.56, −0.33], p = 0.003, with no differences in complication rates, with an OR of 1.29 [0.78, 2.14], p = 0.32, continence rates, with an OR of 1.29 [0.90, 1.83], p = 0.16, erectile function, with an OR of 0.86 [0.52, 1.40], p = 0.54, or biochemical recurrence. Qualitative evidence suggests decreased opioid consumption. Conclusion SP‐RARPs are feasible alternatives to the traditional MP with possible benefits in pain management and length of stay. Future high‐quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

No abstract

No abstract