Comparison of the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Gao, Zhenli; Wu, Jitao; Wang, Ke; Wang, Lin; Yang, Dal Mo; Shi, Lei; Sun, Dongfa; Feng, Ying; Zhang, Peng; Jiang, Ren-Hui

doi:10.1097/00029330-200612020-00017

Cited by 6 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Blood transfusion rate was measured in eight studies 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 19 including 875 patients; our meta-analysis indicated that ELRP group had lower blood transfusion rate than TLRP groups (odd ratio [OR]: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03 – 4.06; P = 0.04) without statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.98; I 2 = 0%) ( Fig. 4 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…A total of 1715 patients were included in the 14 studies 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ; of these, 939 underwent TLRP and 776 underwent ELRP. All included studies reported on the number of patients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Operation time was reported in eleven studies 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 (1159 patients): 617 receiving TLRP and 542 receiving ELRP. Heterogeneity was observed in the pooled analysis (P < 0.0001; I 2 = 95%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We extracted the data of postoperative catheterization time from the six studies 13 15 16 18 19 20 . The pooled data indicated that the heterogeneity was exist (P < 0.0001, I 2 = 83%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure

Cao

Liu

Wang

et al. 2015

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide, prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common malignancy in males. We undertook a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a transperitoneal (TLRP) approach, versus that of an extraperitoneal (ELRP) approach, for treatment of localized PCa. A comprehensive literature search retrieved 14 publications, with a total of 1715 patients. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that an ELRP approach was associated with a significantly shorter postoperative catheterization time (MD: 1.99; 95% CI: 0.52 to 3.54; P = 0.008), less blood transfusion rate (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.06; P = 0.04), shorter intestinal function recovery time (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.09; P < 0.0001) and shorter hospitalization days (MD: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.03 to 4.39; P = 0.002). In addition, our results showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups in operation time (MD: 19.39; 95% CI: −6.67 to 45.44; P = 0.014), intraoperative blood loss (MD: 4.89; 95% CI: −105.00 to 114.79; P = 0.93) and total complication rate (RR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.74; P = 0.27). In summary, our meta-analysis showed that ELRP is likely to be a safe and feasible alternative for localized PCa patients compared with TLRP.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We extracted the data of postoperative catheterization time from the six studies 13 15 16 18 19 20 . The pooled data indicated that the heterogeneity was exist (P < 0.0001, I 2 = 83%).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure

Cao

Liu

Wang

et al. 2015

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies have also compared EERPE to the transperitoneal approach, and these reports have particularly focused on the comparison between EERPE and transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (TLRP) [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] in terms of operative time, complications, oncological results, hospitalisation duration and convalescence (results shown also on Table 1). Most studies agree that EERPE requires less operative time and has an easier learning curve compared to TLRP, but it must be noted that many groups have reported that the two approaches did not differ in these aspects.…”

Section: Clinical Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and outcome

Stolzenburg¹,

Andrikopoulos²,

Kallidonis³

et al. 2011

Asian J Androl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) is a well-established and standardized technique for treating patients with localized prostate cancer. Nevertheless, the procedure is continuously being refined with the expansion of anatomical knowledge. The development of a nerve-sparing approach and improvements in currently used equipment are expected to yield better results in cosmesis and convalescence without sacrificing the procedure's established benefits in terms of potency, continence and oncological management. In this study, the technique and its evolution are presented in detail, along with an analysis of its clinical efficacy. We also consult the literature to compare EERPE to transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and we also discuss new technical advancements regarding the use of robotic assistance during EERPE.

show abstract

Critical appraisal of literature comparing minimally invasive extraperitoneal and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Kallidonis

Prasad

Qazi

et al. 2017

Arab Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo systematically review studies comparing extraperitoneal (E-RP) and transperitoneal minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (T-RP).MethodsThe systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in September 2015. Several databases were searched including Medline and Scopus. Only studies comparing E-RP and T-RP (either laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach) were evaluated. The follow-up of the included patients had to be ≥6 months.ResultsIn all, 1256 records were identified after the initial database search. Of these 20 studies (2580 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The hospital stay was significantly lower in the E-RP cohort, with a mean difference of −0.30 days (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.35, −0.24) for the laparoscopic group and 1.09 days (95% CI −1.47, −0.70) for the robotic group (P < 0.001). Early continence rates favoured the E-RP group, although this was statistically significant only in the laparoscopic group (odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95% CI 1.72, 3.70; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the E-RP and T-RP cohorts for 12-month continence rates for both the laparoscopic (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.89, 2.69; P = 0.12) and robotic groups (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.54, 16.85; P = 0.21). The overall complication and ileus rates were significantly lower in the E-RP cohort for both the laparoscopic and robotic groups. The symptomatic lymphocele rate favoured the T-RP cohort, although this was statistically significant only in the laparoscopic group (OR 8.69, 95% CI 1.60, 47.17; P = 0.01).ConclusionThis review suggests that the extraperitoneal approach is associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower overall complication rate, and earlier return to continence when compared to the transperitoneal approach. The transperitoneal approach has a lower lymphocele rate.

show abstract

Comparison of the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure

Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by the transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal procedure

Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and outcome

Critical appraisal of literature comparing minimally invasive extraperitoneal and transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About