Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Abaza 2020 [13]

Kaouk 2020 [14]

Balasubramanian 2022 [16]

Zeinab 2022 [15]

Zeinab 2023 [10]

Country

USA

USA

USA

USA

USA

Operative approach

Transperitoneal

Extraperitoneal

Transperitoneal

Extraperitoneal

Transperitoneal

Extraperitoneal

Transperitoneal

Extraperitoneal

Transperitoneal

Extraperitoneal

Number of patients, N

24

10

46

52

39

30

78

78

238

238

Age, years

61.27(7.2)

61.1(6.9)

62.5(6.0)

62.7(6.8)

64.6(8.6)

61.5 (5.78)

62.5 (6.67)

63.0 (7.4)

64.0 (5.9)

Bia, kg/m2

27.1(4.3)

29.34(5.3)

29.5(4.9)

28.8(4.3)

32.1(6.4)

28.3 (4.3)

27.4 (4.3)

27.0 (3.7)

27.0 (3.7)

Spa, ng/ml

7.8(8.1)

10.6(8.5)

8.0(5.7)

7.4(5)

9.1(5.5)

5.9 (2.9)

5.5 (2.6)

6.5 (0.9)

6.5 (3)

Follow-up time

NA

NA

NA

150(214.1)

150(214.1)

7(3.7)

9(5.9)

6.0 (6.7)

7.0 (7.5)

Previous abdominal surgery, N (%)

0

0

15(33%)

12(23%)

6(15.4%)

6(20.0%)

37.0 (47.4%)

27.0 (34.6%)

1.0 (0.6%)

49.0 (28.5%)

Prostate volume, mL

NA

NA

NA

51.8(35.1)

48.3(17.4)

33.0 (12.2)

30.0 (15.3)

49.0 (12.6)

49.0 (14.8)

Pathologic stage, N (%)

 ≤ pT2

NA

27 (60.0%)

27(51.9%)

21(53.8%)

16(53.3%)

NA

107.0 (72.3%)

111.0 (61.7%)

 > pT2

NA

19 (41.3%)

25(48.1%)

12(30.8%)

8(26.7%)

NA

41(27.6%)

69(38.4%)

Biopsy grade group, n (%)

 GrGp1

NA

2 (4.3%)

2(3.8%)

NA

24.0 (31.2%)

15.0 (19.5%)

39.0 (16.4%)

47.0 (19.7%)

 GrGp2

28 (60.9%)

33 (63.5%)

35.0 (45.5%)

50.0 (64.9%)

195.0(81.9%)

188.0(79.0%)

 GrGp3

9 (19.6%)

8 (15.4%)

15.0 (19.5%)

10.0 (13.0%)

 GrGp4–5

7 (15.2%)

9 (17.3%)

3.0(3.9%)

2.0(2.6%)

4.0(1.7%)

3.0(1.3%)

  1. aBiopsy Grade Group
  2. bBiopsy Grade Group
  3. cInternational Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading of prostate cancer was used