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

Table 4 Meta-regression models evaluating the influence of the confounded factors to the PSM rate

Factor	Age		D-fascia preservation		Puboprostatic ligament sparing		Selective/no ligation of DVC		pT2 cancer percent		Selection Score of Oncologic Safety
Factor	β ± SE	P-value	β ± SE	P-value	β ± SE	P-value	β ± SE	P-value	β ± SE	P-value	β ± SE	P-value
Total PSM rate in all-stage	0.013 ± 0.006	0.044	−0.032 ± 0.037	0.385	−0.022 ± 0.039	0.561	0.021 ± 0.045	0.643	−0.004 ± 0.002	0.012	−0.013 ± 0.005	0.012
PSM rate in pT2 cancer	0.005 ± 0.005	0.303	0.011 ± 0.032	0.727	−0.050 ± 0.032	0.120	−0.044 ± 0.033	0.183	–	–	–	–
PSM rate in pT3 cancer	0.041 ± 0.018	0.025	−0.001 ± 0.097	0.990	0.111 ± 0.075	0.139	−0.111 ± 0.074	0.133	–	–	–	–

Each of the confounded factors including patients’ age, preservation technique(D-fascia preservation, puboprostatic ligament sparing and selective/no ligation of DVC) was included respectively in the meta-regression models to assess the influence of the confounded factors to the PSM rate. If p-value was less than 0.05, the cofficient and p-value were showed as boldface in the table. D-fascia Denonvilliers fascia, DVC dorsal venous complex, PSM positive surgical margin, β coefficient, SE standard error

ISSN: 1471-2490