[Critic analysis of a comparative meta-analysis on the morbidity, functional and carcinologic results after radical prostatectomy according to surgical approach. Work of cancerology committee of the French urological association].

Date publication

septembre 2010

Auteurs

Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr CORMIER Luc

Tous les auteurs :
Bastide C, Rozet F, Salomon L, Mongiat-Artus P, Beuzeboc P, Cormier L, Eiss D, Gaschignard N, Peyromaure M, Richaud P, Soulie M

Lien Pubmed

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20832030

Résumé

Surgical approach for radical prostatectomy is even today a subject of debate in the urologic community. Many comparative studies between retropubic and laparoscopic approach (robotic assisted or not) were reported since 10 years without being able to decide between the supporters of retropubic or laparoscopic approach. The committee of cancer research of the French urological association took hold this question after a recent meta-analysis publication on this subject. Although imperfect, this meta-analysis exists and permits to conclude partially on the advantages and the inconveniences supposed for each surgical approach. Regarding morbidity after radical prostatectomy, the only significant difference reported concerns the hemorrhagic risk in favour of the laparoscopic approach. Regarding oncologic results, the only exploitable data concern positive surgical margins rate, which is identical whatever surgical approach. Concerning the functional results, no difference was reported in the literature between different surgical approaches.

Référence

Prog Urol. 2010 Sep;20(8):547-52