Analyse critique d'une méta-analyse comparative sur la morbidité, les résultats fonctionnels et carcinologiques de la prostatectomie totale en fonction de la voie d'abord utilisée. Travail du comité de cancérologie de l'AFU

Surgical approach for radical prostatectomy is even today a subject of debate in the urologic community. Many comparative studies between retropubic and laparoscopic approach (robotic assisted or not) were reported since 10 years without being able to decide between the supporters of retropubic or laparoscopic approach. The committee of cancer research of the French urological association took hold this question after a recent meta-analysis publication on this subject. Although imperfect, this meta-analysis exists and permits to conclude partially on the advantages and the inconveniences supposed for each surgical approach. Regarding morbidity after radical prostatectomy, the only significant difference reported concerns the hemorrhagic risk in favour of the laparoscopic approach. Regarding oncologic results, the only exploitable data concern positive surgical margins rate, which is identical whatever surgical approach. Concerning the functional results, no difference was reported in the literature between different surgical approaches.