Skip to main content

Table 3 Characteristics of the included studies in meta-analysis

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

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