Cochrane · systematic review · CD013641
Retzius‐sparing versus standard robotic‐assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.
Rosenberg, JE, Jung, JH, Edgerton, Z, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
UrologyAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 42.9%Low 2 · 28.6%Moderate 2 · 28.6%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Retzius‐sparing RALP compared to standard RALP for the treatment of Prostate Cancer
Population: men (ages > 18 years) with clinically localized prostate cancer
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Urinary continence within 1 week after catheter removal MCID: 5% absolute difference Retzius‐sparing RALP vs standard RALP | RR 1.74 [1.41, 2.14] | 4 studies · 410 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Urinary continence 3 months after surgery MCID: 5% absolute difference Retzius‐sparing RALP vs standard RALP | RR 1.33 [1.06, 1.68] | 5 studies · 526 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Serious adverse events Retzius‐sparing RALP vs standard RALP | RR 1.4 [0.47, 4.17] | 2 studies · 230 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Urinary continence 12 months after surgery MCID: 5% absolute difference Retzius‐sparing RALP vs standard RALP | RR 1.01 [0.97, 1.04] | 2 studies · 222 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Potency 12 months after surgery MCID: 5% absolute difference Retzius‐sparing RALP vs standard RALP | RR 0.98 [0.54, 1.8] | 1 study · 55 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Positive surgical margins MCID: 5% absolute difference Retzius‐sparing RALP vs standard RALP | RR 1.95 [1.19, 3.2] | 3 studies · 308 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Biochemical recurrence‐free survival Retzius‐sparing RALP vs standard RALP | HR 0.45 [0.13, 1.6] | 2 studies · 218 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |