Radiofrequency ablation versus partial nephrectomy for treatment of renal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Our study was to collect the data available in the literature on radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and partial nephrectomy (PN) and conduct a cumulative analysis on perioperative outcomes, renal function outcomes, and survival to evaluate the overall safety and efficacy of RFA versus PN for small renal cell cancer (SRCC). A literature search was carried out using various electronic databases. Data including age, tumor size, comorbid disease, operation duration, hospital stay, pre- and postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), major and minor complications, and local tumor recurrence and metastasis were collected for meta-analysis. Sixteen studies were included for this meta-analysis. The age of patients treated with RFA was significantly older than that of patients treated with PN [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 5.07 years]. There were more patients with cardiovascular disease in RFA group as compared with PN group [odds ratio (OR) = 4.24] before treatment. RFA was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay compared with PN (WMD = -2.02 days). No significant difference was found in major and minor complications between the two groups (major: OR = 0.74; minor: OR = 0.45). Preoperative eGFR and eGFR decline in RFA patients was significantly lower than that in PN patients (WMD = -7.27 and -4.82, respectively), whereas there was no significant difference in postoperative eGFR (WMD = -1.18). The local tumor recurrence rate in RFA group was higher than that in PN group (OR = 1.81). However, the distant metastasis rate was no statistical difference between the two groups (OR = 1.63). RFA is a suitable therapeutic option for older patients and those at high risk for SRCC because of a low risk of operation and better preservation of renal function.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) remains the "gold standard" for surgical treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a robotic surgery used worldwide. The aim of this study is to collect the data available in the literature on RARP and ORP, and further evaluate the overall safety and efficacy of RARP vs. ORP for the treatment of clinically localized PCa. A literature search was performed using electronic databases between January 2009 and October 2013. Clinical data such as operation duration, transfusion rate, positive surgical margins (PSM), nerve sparing, 3- and 12-month urinary continence, and potency were pooled to carry out meta-analysis. Six studies were enrolled for this meta-analysis. The operation duration of RARP group was longer than that of ORP group (weighted mean difference = 64.84). There was no statistically significant difference in the transfusion rate, PSM rate, and between RARP and ORP (transfusion rate, OR = 0.30; PSM rate, OR = 0.94). No significant difference was seen in 3- and 12-month urinary continence recovery (3 months, OR = 1.32; 12 months, OR = 1.30). There was a statistically significant difference in potency between the 3- and 12-month groups (3 months, OR = 2.80; 12 months, OR = 1.70). RARP is a safe and feasible surgical technique for the treatment of clinically localized PCa owing to the advantages of fewer perioperative complications and quicker patency recovery.