Relative effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of localised prostate cancer: A systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis

BJU International

Volumn 112, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 798-812

  Robertson, Clare ^a   Close, Andrew ^b   Fraser, Cynthia ^a   Gurung, Tara ^a   Jia, Xueli ^a   Sharma, Pawana ^a   Vale, Luke ^c   Ramsay, Craig ^a   Pickard, Robert ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

laparoscopic surgery; meta analysis; prostate cancer; robotic surgery; systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY; META ANALYSIS; OPEN RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATECTOMY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); ROBOT ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC PROSTATECTOMY; SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; URINE INCONTINENCE;

LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; META-ANALYSIS; PROSTATE CANCER; ROBOTIC SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; LAPAROTOMY; MALE; PROSTATECTOMY; PROSTATIC NEOPLASMS; ROBOTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84884287614     PISSN: 14644096     EISSN: 1464410X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/bju.12247     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Lavery HJ, Samadi DB, Leveillee RJ,. Not a zero-sum game: the adoption of robotics has increased overall prostatectomy utilisation in the United States [document on the Internet]. Abstract presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting, 2011. Available at: http://www.aua2011.org/ abstracts/process.cfm?title=General+&+Epidemiological+Trends+& +Socioeconomics:+Practice+Patterns,+Cost+Effectiveness&searchType=title. Accesssed January 2013
2. UK Department of Health. National Schedules of Reference Costs 2011-12. London: UK Department of Health, 2013. [speadsheets on the Internet]. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/11/2011-12-reference-costs/. Accessed January 2013
3. Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Rozet F, Vallancien G,. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: technical and early oncological assessment of 40 operations. Eur Urol 1999; 36: 14-20
4. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001; 165 (6 Pt 1): 1964-1966
5. Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC,. Use, costs and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urological surgery. J Urol 2012; 187: 1392-1398
6. Bolenz C, Freedland SJ, Hollenbeck BK, et al. Costs of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2012; [Epub ahead of print]. Available online 4 September 2012. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.08.059. Accessed June 2013
7. Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Klein J, Goezen AS, Teber D,. The role of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the era of robotic surgery. Eur Urol Suppl 2010; 9: 379-387
8. Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W,. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 45-55
9. Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, et al. Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess 2012; 16: 1-313
10. National Insititute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Improving Outcomes in Urological Cancers-Manual. London: National Insititute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2002 [document on the Internet]. Available at: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CSGUC/Guidance/pdf/English. Accessed January 2013
11. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Prostate Cancer. V.3.2011. Fort Washington, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2011 [document on the Internet]. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/prostate.pdf. Accessed January 2013
12. Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Pinochet R, et al. Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010; 57: 371-386
13. Egevad L, Srigley JR, Delahunt B,. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens: rationale and organization. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 1-5
14. Higgins JP, Green S,. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [document on the Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/. Accessed January 2013
15. Lu G, Ades AE,. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23: 3105-3124
16. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D,. WINBUGS: a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure and extensibility. Stat Comput 2000; 10: 325-337
17. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR,. Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis. Stat Methods Med Res 2001; 10: 277-303
18. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A, Logan S,. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (1): CD002278
19. Grossi FS, Di LS, Barnaba D, et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: a case-control study at a single institution. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2010; 82: 109-112
20. Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C,. Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 1503-1512
21. Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, et al. Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics? Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1-146
22. Sharma NL, Papadopoulos A, Lee D, et al. First 500 cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from a single UK centre: learning curves of two surgeons. BJU Int 2011; 108: 739-747
23. Higgins JP, Ramsay C, Reeves BC, et al. Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synth Methods 2013; 4: 12-25
24. Flattery M, Harrington P, O'Neill M, Moran P, Telijer C,. Health Technology Assessment of Robot-Assisted Surgery in Selected Surgical Procedures. Dublin: Health Information and Quality Authority Health Technology Assessment Directorate, 2012 [document on the Internet]. Available at: http://www.hiqa.ie/ healthcare/health-technology-assessment/assessments/robot-assisted-surgery. Accessed January 2013
25. Parsons JK, Bennett JL,. Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 2008; 72: 412-416
26. Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 1-15
27. Sooriakumaran P, Haendler L, Nyberg T, et al. Biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in a European single-centre cohort with a minimum follow-up time of 5 years. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 768-774
28. Yossepowitch O, Bjartell A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 87-99
29. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1-173
30. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 405-417
31. Ho C, Tsakonas E, Tran K, et al. Robot-Assisted Surgery Compared with Open Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery: Clinical Effectiveness and Economic Analyses. Technology Report 137. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2011 [document on the Internet]. Available at: http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/health-technology-assessment/publication/2682. Accessed January 2013
32. Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 382-404
33. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 431-452
34. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1-134, iii-iv
35. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment- comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health 2011; 14: 429-437
36. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1. Value Health 2011; 14: 417-428
37. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, Abrams K,. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 753-767
38. Horton R,. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996; 347: 984-985
39. Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 2010; 147: 830-839
40. Bianco FJ Jr, Vickers AJ, Cronin AM, et al. Variations among experienced surgeons in cancer control after open radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 183: 977-982
41. Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA, et al. Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2012; 109: 1636-1647