Wound infection in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with retropubic radical prostate surgery: A meta-analysis.
infected lymphocele
prostate cancer
retropubic radical prostate surgery
robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy
surgical site wound infection
Journal
International wound journal
ISSN: 1742-481X
Titre abrégé: Int Wound J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101230907
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
24
04
2023
received:
16
04
2023
accepted:
28
04
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
7
9
2023
entrez:
7
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A meta-analysis investigation was executed to measure the wound infection (WI) in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RRP) compared with retropubic radical prostate surgery (RRPS). A comprehensive literature investigation till February 2023 was applied, and 1197 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 19 chosen investigations enclosed 107 153 individuals with prostate cancer (PC) at the starting point. 72 008 of them were utilising RRP, and 35 145 were utilising RRPS. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was utilised to compute the value of the WI in RRP compared with RRPS by the dichotomous approaches and a fixed or random model. RRP had significantly lower surgical site wound infection (SSWI) (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.21-0.52, P < .001) and infected lymphoceles (ILs) (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.92, P = .03) compared with RRPS in individuals with PC. RRP had significantly lower SSWI and ILs compared with RRPS in individuals with PC. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37675805
doi: 10.1111/iwj.14228
pmc: PMC10588328
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3550-3557Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. International Wound Journal published by Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Urology. 2002 Nov;60(5):864-8
pubmed: 12429317
Oncologist. 2016 Aug;21(8):931-9
pubmed: 27401897
J Viral Hepat. 2018 Jul;25(7):771-778
pubmed: 29377464
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2020 Oct;72(5):586-594
pubmed: 32748620
Eur Urol Focus. 2020 Mar 15;6(2):259-266
pubmed: 30413390
Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):382-404
pubmed: 22749851
Eur Urol. 2012 Nov;62(5):779-90
pubmed: 22664219
Eur Urol. 2009 May;55(5):1037-63
pubmed: 19185977
Scand J Urol. 2019 Feb;53(1):26-33
pubmed: 30727795
Cancer Sci. 2014 Nov;105(11):1421-6
pubmed: 25183452
BJU Int. 2003 Aug;92(3):205-10
pubmed: 12887468
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Jan-Feb;65(1):5-29
pubmed: 25559415
J Urol. 2007 Mar;177(3):929-31
pubmed: 17296378
Urology. 2010 May;75(5):1092-7
pubmed: 20022085
Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):418-30
pubmed: 22749850
Eur Urol. 2011 Jan;59(1):1-6
pubmed: 21035248
Eur Urol. 2015 Apr;67(4):660-70
pubmed: 25308968
Urol Oncol. 2018 Nov;36(11):501.e9-501.e13
pubmed: 30153970
BJU Int. 2011 Jun;107(12):1956-62
pubmed: 21044243
Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 Mar-Apr;9(3-4):E232-3
pubmed: 26085890
Turk J Urol. 2018 Jul;44(4):303-310
pubmed: 29932399
Int Wound J. 2023 Nov;20(9):3550-3557
pubmed: 37675805
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
Scand J Urol. 2018 Apr;52(2):116-121
pubmed: 29334304
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):405-17
pubmed: 22749852
Eur Urol. 2021 Feb;79(2):243-262
pubmed: 33172724
Eur Urol. 2012 Sep;62(3):431-52
pubmed: 22749853
Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2011 Sep;6(3):241-9
pubmed: 21682688
Int Braz J Urol. 2020 Sep-Oct;46(5):754-771
pubmed: 32648416
Urol Int. 2016;96(4):373-8
pubmed: 26201500
Korean J Urol. 2013 Nov;54(11):756-61
pubmed: 24255757
Urology. 2007 Feb;69(2):221-5
pubmed: 17320654
J Endourol. 2014 Apr;28(4):430-6
pubmed: 24251547
Eur Urol Focus. 2021 Sep;7(5):964-972
pubmed: 33160915
Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):1-15
pubmed: 22405509
Urol Int. 2020;104(5-6):465-475
pubmed: 31991418
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120