Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Oncol.

Sec. Genitourinary Oncology

Volume 15 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1617812

This article is part of the Research TopicUrothelial Neoplasms: An Integrated Approach to Prevention, Diagnostics, and Personalized TherapyView all 13 articles

Efficacy and safety of male fertility-sparing radical cystectomy with orthotopic neobladder versus radical cystectomy and nerve-sparing cystectomy: A meta-analysis

Provisionally accepted
Yu  HuangYu Huang1Hongjin  ShiHongjin Shi2Qun  WangQun Wang2Zhengyan  WangZhengyan Wang3Rui  WangRui Wang1Yawei  ZhangYawei Zhang2Jiansong  WangJiansong Wang2Nan  ZhangNan Zhang1Shi  FuShi Fu2Haifeng  WangHaifeng Wang2*
  • 1Kunming Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunming, Yunnan Province, China
  • 2The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China
  • 3South Yunnan Central Hospital of Yunnan Province, Yunnan, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Background: Radical cystectomy (RC) serves as the gold standard treatment for organ-localized bladder cancer; however, postoperative complications diminish the quality of life of patients. Whether male fertility-sparing radical cystectomy(FSRC) with orthotopic neobladder (ONB) surpasses RC and nerve-sparing cystectomy (NSC) remains controversial. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of the two surgical approaches. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) statement, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI databases, Medline, and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2024. Eligible studies were identified in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: A total of 10 studies encompassing 1104 patients were incorporated in this study. The outcomes demonstrated that fertility-sparing radical cystectomy (FSRC) presented significant superiority in erectile function (EF) (OR: 12.67; 95% CI 3.27-49.03; P<0.001), daytime urinary continence (OR: 5.91; 95% CI, 1.83-19.13; P=0.003), and nocturnal urinary continence (OR: 5.13; 95% CI, 1.98-13.34; P<0.001) over non-fertility-sparing radical cystectomy (nFSRC). Compared with nFSRC, the incidences of postoperative prostate cancer (RD:−0.10; 95% CI,-0.21-0.10; P=0.086), tumor local recurrence (OR:0.51; 95% CI,0.26-1.00; P=0.052), tumor metastasis (RD:-0.02; 95% CI,-0.09-0.06; P=0.665) and 2-year survival (OR:1.21; 95% CI, 0.63-2.30; P=0.567) after surgery were comparable. In the subgroup analysis, some differences in outcome measures were identified based on sample size, study type, control group, and study area. Conclusion: Under rigorous preoperative screening, male FSRC with orthotopic neobladder ONB demonstrates certain efficacy and safety in the treatment of bladder cancer, particularly among younger patients, warranting broader clinical consideration. which is deserving of further promotion. More relevant clinical RCTs are required.

Keywords: Bladder cancer, Radical cystectomy, modified, Meta-analysis, Qrthotopic neobladder

Received: 25 Apr 2025; Accepted: 17 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Huang, Shi, Wang, Wang, Wang, Zhang, Wang, Zhang, Fu and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Haifeng Wang, wanghaifeng@kmmu.edu.cn

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.