4.6 Article

Wound infection in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with retropubic radical prostate surgery: A meta-analysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL WOUND JOURNAL
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14228

Keywords

infected lymphocele; prostate cancer; retropubic radical prostate surgery; robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy; surgical site wound infection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A meta-analysis compared the wound infection rates between robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and retropubic radical prostate surgery. The analysis showed that robotic-assisted surgery had significantly lower rates of surgical site wound infection and infected lymphoceles compared to retropubic surgery. However, caution is needed in interpreting the results due to small sample sizes in some of the included studies.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available