Oncological safety of intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy compared with conventional process: a pooled review and meta-regression analysis based on available studies

Table 3 Characteristics of the included studies in meta-analysis

First author	Study design	Country	Surgery duration	Sample size for Intra-RP	Surgical type	Mean age in Intra-RP
Curto 2006	surgical series	France	2003.5–2005.3	425	LRP	62.0
Budaus 2009	surgical series	Germany	2005.4–2007.12	1150	RRP	63
Stolzenburg 2008	surgical series	Germany	2001.12–2007.11	150	LRP	60.2
Xylinas 2010	surgical series	France	2007.12–2008.6	50	RALRP	60.8
Asimakopoulos 2010	surgical series	Italy	2007.10–2009.3	30	RALRP	52
Khoder 2012	surgical series	Germany	2007.1–2009.12	231	RRP	63.3
Greco 2010	controlled	Germany	2005.1–2007.11	300	LRP vs RRP	61
Greco 2011	controlled	Germany	2005.1–2009.5	250	LRP	59
Asimakopoulos 2011	randomized controlled	Italy	2007.10–2008.10	128	LRP vs RALRP	60.4
Hoshi 2013	controlled	Japan	2009.1–2011.10	44	LRP	65.7
Stewart 2011	controlled	UK	2006.2–2009.12	102	LRP	61.5
Mortezavi 2012	controlled	Switzerland	2006.5–2008.8	80	RALRP
VIP 2005	controlled	USA	2003.1–2003.12	35	RALRP	58.6
Neil 2009	controlled	UK	2000.3–2007.10	240	LRP	59
Potdevin 2009	controlled	New Jersey	2006.1–2007.12	70	RALRP	58.63
Stolzenburg 2010	randomized controlled	Germany	2004.6–2008.6	200	LRP	61
Choi 2012	controlled	Korea	2011.11–2012.4	50	LRP	66.5
Ihsan-Tasci 2015	controlled	Turkey	2009.8–2012.12	200	RALRP	60.8

Intra-RP intrafascial radical prostatectomy, VIP Vattikuti Institute Prostatectomy, RRP retropubic radical prostatectomy, LRP laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, RALRP robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

ISSN: 1471-2490