453 Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter improves early recovery of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Пушкарь, Д Ю; Govorov, Alexander; Rasner, P.; Колонтарев, К. Б.; Rocco, Bernardo

doi:10.1016/s1569-9056(16)60455-4

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1). This included six published studies [26][27][28][29][30][31]; and two abstract proceedings [32,33]. We contacted the authors and received relevant study data from two studies [30,32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We contacted the authors and received relevant study data from two studies [30,32]. Study characteristics are described in Table 1 [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]. The risk of bias of all included studies is summarised in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent innovations have focussed on anterior preservation by virtue of a modified apical dissection and lateral prostatic fascia preservation [37], and the detrusor apron-sparing hood (DASH) technique [38]. These modifications were not applied in the S-RALP arms of the studies included in this review (neither has their value been rigorously evaluated in the context of RCTs; Table 3 [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, our interpretation focusses on clinically relevant (rather than statistically significant) findings and provides absolute effect size estimates for all dichotomous outcomes. This is also the most up-to-date, which included data from studies that are only available in their abstract form, and unpublished data that we sought from the trial authors [30,32,33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robot‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer: a Cochrane Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2021 https://doi.org/ 10.1002/14651858.CD013677.pub2 (see www.cochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. ObjectivesTo assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (PR-RALP) compared to no PR during standard RALP (S-RALP) for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. Patients and MethodsWe performed a systematic search with no restrictions including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing variations of PR-RALP vs S-RALP for clinically localised prostate cancer. The quality of evidence was assessed on outcome basis according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 1085 randomised patients, of whom 963 completed the trials. All patients had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease. ResultsA PR-RALP may improve urinary continence 1 week after catheter removal compared to no PR (risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.73; I 2 = 42%, five studies, 498 patients, low certainty of evidence [CoE]). A PR-RALP may have little to no effect on urinary continence 3 months after surgery compared to no PR (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.14; I 2 = 67%, six studies, 842 patients, low CoE). A PR-RALP probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to no PR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29-1.92; I 2 = 0%, six studies, 835 patients, moderate CoE). ConclusionsThis review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence 1 week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and positive surgical margin rates are likely similar. There was no difference in our subgroup analysis for all outcomes with anterior reconstruction technique when combined with PR vs only PR.

show abstract

“…1). This included six published studies [26][27][28][29][30][31]; and two abstract proceedings [32,33]. We contacted the authors and received relevant study data from two studies [30,32].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%