@article{TAU32535,
author = {Huihuang Li and Cheng Zhao and Peihua Liu and Jiao Hu and Zhenglin Yi and Jinbo Chen and Xiongbing Zu},
title = {Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
journal = {Translational Andrology and Urology},
volume = {8},
number = {6},
year = {2019},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Background: The influence of a previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) is still controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes of RP with or without a previous TURP.
Methods: We conducted a computerized literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and included 15 retrospective studies evaluating RPs with or without a previous TURP in this meta-analysis.
Results: Fifteen studies, including 6,840 cases, were analyzed. RP after a previous TURP were related to smaller prostate volumes (WMD: −6.93 cm3; 95% CI, −10.89 to −2.97; P<0.001), lower preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (WMD: −1.51; 95% CI, −2.49 to −0.53; P=0.002), longer operative times (WMD: 13.22 min; 95% CI, 4.55 to 21.89 min; P=0.003), more blood loss (WMD: 55.38 mL; 95% CI, 12.35 to 98.41 mL; P=0.01), higher overall complication rates (OR =1.98; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.08; P=0.002), longer hospital stays (WMD: 1.16 days; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.67; P<0.001), longer duration of catheter (WMD: 0.60 days; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.64; P<0.001), higher positive surgical margin rates (OR =1.30; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.55; P=0.004), lower complete continence rates at 3 months (OR =0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.81; P<0.001), 6 months (OR =0.52; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.88; P=0.01), 12 months (OR =0.59; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.74; P<0.001), and lower potency rates at 12 months (OR =0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.77; P<0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that open RP after previous TURP could achieve better outcomes.
Conclusions: RP after a previous TURP leads to worse perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes. For these patients an open procedure is recommended. Due to the low number of studies and known biases, further large-scale studies are needed to support this result.},
issn = {2223-4691}, url = {https://tau.amegroups.org/article/view/32535}
}