Development and application of Reverse Systematic Review on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

CONTEXT

Evidence-based medicine was widely used in the context of diverse surgical treatments through several systematic reviews (SR). Despite the high level of evidence from these reviews, the specificity of the analyzed outcomes makes it difficult to establish the state of maturity of the analyzed technique neglecting significant bias.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a novel SR methodology based on a temporal population analysis in a Reverse Systematic Review utilizing the case of well-established laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematized search was performed in order to obtain the primary studies feeding SR for the composition of a complete database, covering clinical-surgical and bibliometric variables. Quantitative, qualitative, and temporal correlations of studies variables were performed to determine trends regarding results, geographic distribution and bibliometrics to delineate the development and trends of LRP between 2000 and 2017.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Among a total of 353 SR found, 40 were included and provided 238 primary studies elected to the database composition. An accumulation of studies was found on the Europe-USA axis predominantly in 4 preeminent scientific journals, which scientifically influenced the profile of publications, mainly until 2011 when interest clearly migrates to robotic-assisted surgery reducing the influence of these centers in the development of LRP in an upfront reversal in the standard of publications with a clear shift between LRP and robotic-assisted surgery studies. Operative time, blood loss, and conversion to open surgery showed trend to reduction and only biochemical recurrence (among PENTAFECTA) positively correlated with the year of publication, all with stabilization throughout the period.

CONCLUSION

The Reverse Systematic Review proved to be feasible and effective in demonstrating the evolution of a surgical technique, outlining its "Natural History," which is not captured in the standard SR. In addition, it allowed to identify the presence of scientific influencers and potential biases in the composition of the best evidence in the literature, as well as to trace the curves of development until its technical-scientific maturity. Further studies to test the reproducibility of this methodology may aid in the comparison of diverse surgical techniques. Patient summary: This temporal study analyzed the variables inherent to the publications and the patients in the primary studies of SRs that approached a specific surgical technique. The results demonstrated the scientific maturity of the technique and the vulnerability to scientific influencers in the history of its development.

Radical Prostatectomy Technique Dispute: Analyzing Over 1.35 Million Surgeries in 20 Years of History

Systematic reviews (SR) produce the best evidence comparing open (RRP), laparoscopic (LRP), and robotic (RARP) radical prostatectomy (RP). However, the hyperfiltration of evidence generates very specific scenarios that reduce the power of extrapolation. To compare RP evidence regarding demographics using a new methodology called reverse systematic review (RSR). Between 2000 and 2020, 8 databases were searched for SR studies on RRP, LRP, or RARP. All references were captured and analyzed over time in 80 SR. Total of 1724 reports (nr = 752, 43.7% for RARP; nr = 559, 32.4% for RRP; nr = 413, 23.9% for LRP) described 1,353,485 patients (881,719, 65.1% RRP; 366,006, 27.0% RARP; 105,760, 7.8% LRP). Patients/center/year was higher in RARP compared to LRP and RRP, median 50.0, 40.0, and 36.66, respectively, P < .001. Surgeons per study was lesser in RARP and LRP compared to RRP, median 2.0, 2.0, and 6.0, respectively, P < .001. Study duration and follow-up in years was shorter in RARP compared to LRP and RRP, median 2.6, 3.0, and 4.0, respectively, P < .001. Cumulative RARP reports predominate in North America (55.7%, nr = 468) and Asia (47.8%, nr =129), while LRP predominate in Europe (42.3%, nr =230) and RRP in Oceania (45.1%, nr = 23). After 2010 all continents began to accumulate more patients in the robotic approach. Potential biases related to shorter follow-up, greater volume centers, and surgeons were identified favoring the RARP. Analyzing the context of the available evidence is essential to compare techniques. Influenced by economic and scientific interests, robotic surgery was developed in centers with a higher volume of surgeries, characterizing potential biases when comparing techniques in the clinical shared decision.

Sexual function criteria post laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a reverse systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To apply a new review methodology, called reverse systematic review (RSR), to assess how different classification criteria can influence erectile dysfunction rates in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

METHODS

We used RSR from January 1, 2000, until December 31, 2020. The post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction (PPED) rates were evaluated at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after surgery in different criteria selected as the most commonly used and divided into four groups: "Erection Sufficient for Intercourse (ESI)", "IIEF-5 > 17", "IIEF-5 > 22" and "Not Available". Temporal distribution of different criteria was analyzed to identify patterns throughout the "natural history" of LRP.

RESULTS

40 systematic reviews on LRP evaluated 81 cohorts and 21,618 patients on PPED. ESI was the predominant form of PPED evaluation (75.3%) followed by IIEF-5 > 22 (11.1%). Despite being a simpler criterion, ESI showed worse PPED rates at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months (8%, 27%, 43% and 51%) than IIEF-5 > 22 (14%, 26%, 45% and 58%). The studies were published between 2005 and 2015, but it was in 2010 that the ESI criterion was established as predominant in the literature, reducing the application of others.

CONCLUSION

The RSR has proven effective in demonstrating how the PPED evaluation criteria behaved in the "natural history" of the LRP. It showed how a simple and easy-to-apply criterion, such as the ESI, was preferred by the authors, even showing worse PPED rates than other more complex.