IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0131167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Use of Unidirectional Barbed Suture for Urethrovesical Anastomosis during Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety

Author

Listed:
  • Huixin Li
  • Chunxiao Liu
  • Haibin Zhang
  • Wenfeng Xu
  • Jianhua Liu
  • Yong Chen
  • Tangxuan Li
  • Bin Li
  • Zhenquan Wu
  • Taolin Xia

Abstract

Background: Unidirectional barbed suture (UBS) has been widely used for surgery in recent years, especially for urethrovesical anastomosis (UVA) during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, the efficacy and safety comparing it with conventional non-barbed suture (CS) for UVA is still controversial. Aims: The objective of this study is to assess the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of UBS compared with CS for UVA during RARP. Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, SinoMed (Chinese) and other databases on Oct. 9, 2014 to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other comparative studies evaluating these two types of suture. The outcome measures included anastomosis time operative time, posterior reconstruction (PR) time, postoperative leakage (PL) rate and continence rates at different time points (4-6 weeks, 3 months, 6-12 months) after surgery. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL) and length of catheterization (LOC). Results: Three RCTs and six observational studies including 786 cases were identified. Meta-analysis of extractable data showed that use of UBS could significantly reduce anastomosis time (weighted mean difference [WMD]:-3.98min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.02 -1.95; p = 0.0001), operative time (WMD:-10.06min; 95% CI, -15.45–-4.67; p = 0.0003) and PR time (WMD:-0.93min; 95% CI, -1.52–-0.34; p = 0.002). No significant difference was found in PL rate, EBL, LOC, or continence rates at 4-6 weeks, 3 months and 6–12 months after surgery. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicates that UBS appears to be safe and efficient as CS for UVA during RARP with not only shorter anastomosis time, operative time, PR time, but also equivalent PL rate, EBL, LOC, and continence rates at 4-6 weeks, 3 months and 6-12 months after surgery. For the inherent limitations of the eligible studies, future more persuasive RCTs are needed to confirm and update our findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Huixin Li & Chunxiao Liu & Haibin Zhang & Wenfeng Xu & Jianhua Liu & Yong Chen & Tangxuan Li & Bin Li & Zhenquan Wu & Taolin Xia, 2015. "The Use of Unidirectional Barbed Suture for Urethrovesical Anastomosis during Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0131167
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131167
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131167
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131167&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0131167?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0131167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.