| Abstrakt: |
Purpose To review the literature on the definition and incidence of leakage after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) as well as its relation to the surgeon's technical experience, the type of urethrovesical suture, and the approach (extraperitoneal or transperitoneal).Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic review of the subject, consulting MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library (MeSH terms “radical prostatectomy,” “laparoscopy,” “anastomotic leakage,” and “complications”). Languages were limited to English, Spanish, and French. Selection criteria were original papers with 30 or more patients and description of the leakage rate. Data on mean catheterization days, surgical approach, and type of suture were retrieved. Papers were included after approval by two independent reviewers. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS V. 12. A Pvalue <0.05 was considered significant.Results A total of 24 articles were identified meeting the inclusion criteria. Most of them were observational. There were no randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was not performed because of clinical heterogeneity. Leakage was defined in 11 of the papers, and great variation in the definition was found. On average, the incidence of anastomotic leakage was 9.7 (3964091 patients) and ranged from 3.2 to 33. None of the risk factors studied showed statistical significance, although some individual series demonstrated a decrease in the leakage rate with increasing surgeon experience.Conclusions The evidence in the studies on urine leakage after LRP is poor. There is a lack of a uniform definition of the condition. Time frame, diagnostic method, and significance need to be standardized. This lack of definition, together with the character of the studies and the heterogeneity of the series, makes comparison difficult, precluding a proper meta-analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
