Dataset Information

Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the intrafascial and interfascial nerve sparing (ITR-NS and ITE-NS) radical prostatectomy. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed. Six comparative trials were selected and embraced in this research, including one randomized controlled trial, three prospective comparative trials, and two retrospective comparative trials. With regard to perioperative parameters, no significant association of operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of catheterization, and hospital stay existed between ITR-NS and ITE-NS. With respect to the functional results, ITR-NS had advantages in terms of both continence and potency recovery compared with ITE-NS. In reference to the oncologic results, the ITR-NS showed lower overall positive surgical margin (PSM) compared with ITE-NS but pT2 PSM and biochemical recurrence free rates were similar to the two surgical types. This study demonstrates that ITR-NS has better continence at 6 mo and 36 mo and better potency recovery at 6 mo and 12 mo postoperatively, regardless of the surgical technique. The cancer control of ITR-NS was also better than that of ITE-NS. This may be explained by the fact that patients in ITE-NS group present higher risk cancer than patients in ITR-NS group.

SUBMITTER: Weng H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5597634 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Weng Hong H Zeng Xian-Tao XT Li Sheng S Meng Xiang-Yu XY Shi Ming-Jun MJ He Da-Lin DL Wang Xing-Huan XH

Scientific reports 20170913 1

The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the intrafascial and interfascial nerve sparing (ITR-NS and ITE-NS) radical prostatectomy. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed. Six comparative trials were selected and embraced in this research, including one randomized controlled trial, three prospective comparative trials, and two retrospective comparative trial ...[more]

PMID: 28904361

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of surgery versus observation for men with localized prostate cancer detected by means of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is not known.MethodsFrom November 1994 through January 2002, we randomly assigned 731 men with localized prostate cancer (mean age, 67 years; median PSA value, 7.8 ng per milliliter) to radical prostatectomy or observation and followed them through January 2010. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; the secondary outcome was prostate-cancer mortality.ResultsDuring the median follow-up of 10.0 years, 171 of 364 men (47.0%) assigned to radical prostatectomy died, as compared with 183 of 367 (49.9%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.08; P=0.22; absolute risk reduction, 2.9 percentage points). Among men assigned to radical prostatectomy, 21 (5.8%) died from prostate cancer or treatment, as compared with 31 men (8.4%) assigned to observation (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.09; P=0.09; absolute risk reduction, 2.6 percentage points). The effect of treatment on all-cause and prostate-cancer mortality did not differ according to age, race, coexisting conditions, self-reported performance status, or histologic features of the tumor. Radical prostatectomy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality among men with a PSA value greater than 10 ng per milliliter (P=0.04 for interaction) and possibly among those with intermediate-risk or high-risk tumors (P=0.07 for interaction). Adverse events within 30 days after surgery occurred in 21.4% of men, including one death.ConclusionsAmong men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality, as compared with observation, through at least 12 years of follow-up. Absolute differences were less than 3 percentage points. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program and others; PIVOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007644.).

Project description:BackgroundIntrafascial prostatectomy was a modified technique from the conventional nerve-sparing surgery in order to improve patients' post-surgical continence and erectile function; however, ongoing controversy exists regarding the oncological safety of this technique. In this study we aimed to provide a critical and pooled analysis based on published literatures regarding the oncological outcomes after intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy.MethodsDatabase searches were performed for published articles till June 2018 on PubMed. Three reviewers screened fulfilled papers and extracted data independently. Main outcome was the positive surgical margins (PSMs) rates stratified by pathological stages. We performed both one-arm and comparative meta-analysis to evaluate the oncological safety of intrafascial technique. Moreover, we built meta-regression models to assess the confounding factors.ResultsWe retrieved a total of 117 records after electronic search, of which 21 studies were finally included in this review. There were 15 controlled studies and 6 surgical series. Our one-arm meta-analysis demonstrated that the total PSM rates after intrafascial techniques ranging from 2.2 to 35%, with a pooled rate of 14.5% on average (480 of 3151 patients, 95% confidence interval[CI]: 11.2-17.5%). Meta-regression model showed that patients' age, pT2 cancer percentage and Selection Score of Oncological Safety (SSOS) were significantly associated with total PSM rate; moreover, each 1 point of SSOS could decrease the total PSM rate by 1.3% on average. Comparative meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intra- and inter-fascial group regarding PSM rates.ConclusionsWith stringent case selection and when performed by experienced surgeons, intrafascial prostatectomy could offer an acceptable or, at least, equivalent PSM rate compared with the conventional interfascial approach. Preoperative SSOS more than 7 points could be considered as an indication of intrafascial radical prostatectomy.

Project description:BackgroundIntrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy has been currently applied based on the updated anatomic understanding of periprostatic cavernous nerves, in order to provide patients better postoperative recovery of continence and potency. The aim of our study is to perform a pooled analysis of available literatures regarding the functional outcomes following intrafascial nerve-sparing technique.MethodsThe authors performed database searches of articles published till October 2017 on PubMed using following keywords across the "title" and "abstract" field of the records: intrafascial, veil, curtain dissection, high anterior release, incremental nerve sparing, and radical prostatectomy. Fulfilled papers were screened and data were extracted independently by 3 reviewers. Main outcome was the postoperative continence and potency rate stratified by follow-up durations. Both 1-arm and comparative meta-analyses were performed and meta-regression models were conducted to evaluate the confounding factors.ResultsUsing the electronic search strategy, a total of 71 records were retrieved and 20 studies were finally included, of which 6 were surgical series and 14 were controlled studies. Our 1-arm meta-analysis summarized the pooled continence rates after intrafascial prostatectomy were 59.4%, 76.2%, 89.9%, and 92.2% at postoperative follow-up of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Regardless of the variance in potency definition, the pooled potency rates after intrafascial prostatectomy were 42.2%, 54.2%, and 72.2% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Comparative analysis showed that the intrafascial group offered better continence rates at 1, 3, and 6 months with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.38 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.73-3.26), 1.82 (95% CI: 1.18-2.82), and 2.19 (95% CI: 1.43-3.34) as compared with the interfascial group. Moreover, potency rate in the intrafascial group was higher at 12 months than in the interfascial group, with an OR of 2.44 (95% CI: 1.35-4.42).ConclusionBased on the limited evidence, our study demonstrated that intrafascial nerve-sparing prostatectomy could provide patients with earlier recovery of continence and better erectile function compared with conventional interfascial approach, but physiological mechanisms about this technique still need further study.

Dataset Information

Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure