Postoperative patient comfort in suprapubic drainage versus transurethral catheterization following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Is Urethral Catheterization Necessary in Retzius-sparing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy?

OBJECTIVE

To analyze whether urethral catheter (UC)-free anastomosis during Retzius-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP) results in worsening immediate perioperative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records of patients undergoing robotic-assisted RP with or without indwelling UC placement by a single surgeon between January 2020 and March 2022. Clinical and pathological characteristics were evaluated. An independent t-test was used to compare continuous variables, and Pearson's chi-square test or Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen patients underwent robotic prostatectomy from January 2020 to June 2022. Sixty-two patients had both a UC for 12 hours postoperatively and a suprapubic catheter for 6days, while in 53 patients a UC was omitted. There was no significant difference noted between the groups regarding age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiology score, prostate-specific antigen, stage, node status, or positive margins. There were no significant differences in the rates of anastomotic leak, ileus, or urethral stricture. Patients had a significantly higher pad-free rate in the suprapubic catheter-only group (P = .04) at 3months. There was no difference in average number of pads used or the number using more than 1 pad/day.

CONCLUSION

Omission of urethral catheterization during Retzius-sparing RP is safe and doesn't result in an increased risk in perioperative or postoperative complications, but rather appears to be associated with a significantly improved 3-month pad-free rate.

Effect of different catheter pathways on wounds after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide and the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths in men. With the rapidly increasing surgical rate of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, there is still controversy about how to use a urinary catheter post-operatively. Thus, we attempted to compare the post-operative wound-related outcomes through a meta-analysis of urethral catheterisation (UC) versus suprapubic catheterisation (SPC) after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. As of August 2023, the authors conducted systematic searches in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The authors reviewed the relevant literature separately to determine comparisons between SPC and UC treatment after radical prostatectomy. A total of 395 subjects were enrolled in the five trials, met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Data collection and analysis revealed significant differences in catheter bother to patients for surgical trauma (MD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.48, 1.48 p = 0.0001), with SPC causing less catheter bother to patients post-operatively; post-operative catheter-related problems (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.03, 326.1 p = 0.61), the POD1 of the post-operative period (MD, - 0.09; 95% CI, -0.75, 0.94 p = 0.83) and the POD3 of the post-operative period (MD, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.99, 0.01 p = 0.06); there was no statistically significant difference in wound pain. Compared with UC, SPC patients had less post-operative catheter distress. Thus, SPC is more beneficial in reducing post-operative wound discomfort in patients. The validity of the results remains to be tested in more and better studies.

Omitting routine cystography after RARP: Analysis of complications and readmission rates in suprapubic and transurethral drained patients

OBJECTIVES

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become the therapy of choice for local treatment of prostate cancer. Postoperatively, urologists perform cystography before removing urinary catheters due to concerns about the integrity of the vesicourethral anastomosis. This study aims to evaluate the safety of waiving cystography before early catheter removal after RARP.

METHODS

A total of 514 patients from two tertiary referral centers who underwent RARP were retrospectively included. Patients received postoperative urinary drainage by transurethral (TUC) or suprapubic catheter (SPC). During the first year, both centers performed routine cystography before removing TUC or SPC on postoperative day 5. In the following year, management changed and catheters were removed without cystography unless indicated by the surgeon. Demographic and perioperative data were analyzed. Postoperative complications and readmission rates were compared between standard cystography (StCG), no cystography (NCG), and selective cystography (SCG).

RESULTS

Groups were comparable regarding demographic and oncological parameters. Analysis showed no significant difference regarding major complications and readmission rates between standard and no cystography (p = 0.155 and 0.998 respectively). Omitting routine cystography did not lead to inferior postoperative courses regardless of both urinary drainage used and tumor stage. Subgroup analysis showed an increase of major complications in SCG patients when compared with NCG (p = 0.003) while readmissions remained comparable (p = 0.554).

CONCLUSION

Waiving routine cystography before early catheter removal after RARP appears to be safe and feasible regardless of urinary drainage. However, the selective cystogram at the surgeon's request still plays a role in monitoring patients with an elevated risk profile.

Variations in Opioid Use Following Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in South Florida

Introduction: Opioid dependency has been a persistent issue in the United States over the past two decades. Increased efforts have been made to reduce opioid prescribing. Our objective was to quantify at-home opioid requirements following radical prostatectomy. Methods: Written questionnaires were administered to patients 1 week following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). Patients provided data on opioid use, pain levels, and demographic characteristics. Results: Sixty-five patients were included. Median age (interquartile range [IQR]) was 69 (62-72) years. The majority were white (85%) and hispanic (67%). Prescriptions ranged from 6 to 15 pills of 5-mg oxycodone equivalents. Twenty-two percent (145/663) of the prescribed pills in the study were consumed. Fifty-four percent (35/65) of patients did not take opioids. Of the 30 patients who took opioids, median use (IQR) was 4.5 (3-6) pills. Forty-six percent (30/65) reported catheter-related pain. Patients who took opioids reported higher levels of pain. On generalized linear regression, younger age, lower levels of education, and living with a family member were factors associated with increased risk for opioid use (all p < 0.05). Conclusions: Despite the Florida Department of Health's restriction on narcotic prescriptions to 3-day supplies, opioids are still overprescribed in our region. The majority of patients do not require opioids after RALP, and patients who do require an opioid analgesic can be adequately managed with less than 6 pills of 5-mg oxycodone equivalents.

Surgical techniques to improve continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy directly affects urinary continence dynamics with incontinence being a major factor in patients’ quality of life, social and psychological status. In order to help maintain continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), a number of surgical techniques have been described. In the present narrative review, we summarize the surgical techniques that have been applied during RARP and their effects on incontinence rates and time to continence recovery.

Surgical techniques to improve continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy directly affects urinary continence dynamics with incontinence being a major factor in patients' quality of life, social and psychological status. In order to help maintain continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), a number of surgical techniques have been described. In the present narrative review, we summarize the surgical techniques that have been applied during RARP and their effects on incontinence rates and time to continence recovery.

[Radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, perioperative management by French urologists in 2018]

INTRODUCTION

Prostatectomy (PT) is a common procedure performed by many urologists. In 2018, 20,207 prostatectomies were performed in France, and few studies evaluated the perioperative habits of urologists. As part of writing guidelines for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) we wished to evaluate practice of urologists in their hospital management of a prostatectomy.

MATERIEL AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent by Survey Monkey in June and July 2018 to all urologists who are members of the French Association of Urology.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty seven urologists (14%) answered the questionnaire, 62% have private practice. The average number of operators per center performing PT was 4, with a median number of 70 interventions (0 to 486) per center in 2018. Open surgery is still gold standard (39.13%), followed by the robot-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic (34.78%) and standard laparoscopic (24.22%). Alimentation, like first stand-up, was re-established on the first post-operative day, and the average hospital stay was 4±2 nights. The removal of the bladder catheter was most often performed at home by nurse (49.06%), one week after surgery. Only 10.06% of urologists systematically perform a cystography before removal urinary catheter.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative management of prostatectomy in France is relatively homogeneous, between urologists. The length of hospital stay remains important and could be reduced by proposing an ERAS protocol as has been obtained for cystectomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Suprapubic Versus Urethral Catheter for Urinary Drainage After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the evidence regarding the usage of suprapubic tube (SPT) versus indwelling urethral catheter (IUC) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Available data on the use of SPT for urinary drainage after RARP is somewhat limited mostly because of the variations of study designs and non-standardized outcomes. Although it may provide some mild benefit in terms of catheter-related pain and discomfort, the benefit seems not to be clinically significant. The evidence in the literature so far does not support routine usage of SPT as the primary urinary drainage method after RARP. Further higher-quality studies that can show clinically significant advantages over IUC are still needed to justify its usage.

Superior early and long-term continence following early micturition on day 2 after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a randomized prospective trial

PURPOSE

To elucidate early and long-term continence and patient comfort depending on type and duration of catheterization after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

198 patients were randomized prospectively into three groups (May 2016-July 2017): A transurethral catheter with micturition on postoperative day (POD) 5 was placed in the control group (TD5); a suprapubic tube (SPT) with micturition on POD 5 was placed in the group SD5 or with micturition on POD 2 in group SD2, respectively. Questionnaires were used for catheter-related satisfaction. Functional outcome analysis included residual volume analysis, uroflowmetry, IPSS, 12-h pad test, and daily pad use. Follow-up was conducted up to 12 months.

RESULTS

Postoperative comfort and catheter-related complications were similar in the three groups. However, on the day of catheter removal, continence was significantly better in the 12-h pad test for the SD2 group with 14 ml vs. 30 ml (TD5) and 24 ml (SD5), p = 0.007. Median residual urine volume between the groups was comparable with 17 ml in TD5, 7 ml in SD5, and 11 ml in SD2, (p = 0.07). Postoperative IPSS did not differ significantly in the follow-up period. After 4 weeks, 63% of the patients in SD2 were continent (no pad/day) compared to 33% in TD5 and 41% in SD5, p = 0.004. After 12 months, 76% were continent in TD5, 87% in SD5, and 94% in SD2, p = 0.023.

CONCLUSIONS

Early micturition after SPT placement in robotic radical prostatectomy seems to be beneficial without an increased risk of complications.

The comparison of transurethral versus suprapubic catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The transurethral catheter (TUC) or supra-pubic catheter is commonly used after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, the best way of urine drainage after the operation is still controversial.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science databases and the reference lists of relevant articles was performed up to July 2019. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies assessing the two techniques.

Results

In total, nine studies (1,121 patients) were eligible, including three RCTs, one prospective and five retrospective studies. After RARP, postoperative pain was less in suprapubic catheter (SPC) group than TC group, both within 3 days [mean difference (MD): -0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.37 to -0.02; P=0.04] and 5 days after operation (MD: -0.96; 95% CI: -1.39 to -0.52; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference between SPC and TUC groups, in operation time (MD: 2.58; 95% CI: -5.82 to 10.97; P=0.55) and at rates of both catheterization-associated complication [odds ratio (OR): 1.05; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64; P=0.83] and long-term urinary incontinence (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12; P=0.13).

Conclusions

Patients in SPC group suffer from less postoperative pain compared with the TUC group. SPC can be a better alternate of TUC.

Pain and discomfort after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparative study between suprapubic cystostomy and urethral catheter as urinary drainage

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate differences in discomfort, complications and functional results after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) according to different urinary drainage: suprapubic tube (SPT) and standard urethral catheter (UC).

METHODS

Prospective, comparative, consecutive, non-randomized study. In all patients with a water-tight anastomosis, no hematuria, obesity, previous suprapubic surgery or history of bladder cancer, a SPT (two-way Foley 14-Fr catheter) was positioned instead of a Foley 18-Fr UC. One week after surgery, an institutional self-compiled questionnaire was administered. The patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of UC or SPT and were compared concerning pain, perioperative results, complications, functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with UC and 135 with SPT agreed to participate to the study. Median postoperative pain score was 3 (IQR: 2-5) in UC and 3 (IQR: 1-5) in SPT group (P=0.324); urinary drain-related pain scores were 3 (IQR: 1-5) in UC and 1 (IQR: 0-3) in SPT groups (P<0.001); catheter removal related scores were 1 (IQR: 0-3) and 1 (IQR: 1-3) (P=0.317), respectively. Lastly, 17.8% (UC) and 31.1% (SPT) wore a protection (small or medium pad) while the urinary drainage was in place (P=0.061). No differences related to complications were found (P=0.085); 7.9% of patients in UC group and 4.2% in SPT group (P=0.178) used pads one year after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated suprapubic tube to be more comfortable than transurethral catheter after RARP, with a possible advantage concerning anastomotic postoperative problems.

Supra-pubic versus urethral catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: systematic review of current evidence

PURPOSE

To provide latest evidence on the use of suprapubic catheter (SPC) versus urethral catheter (UC) after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic revision of literature was performed up to September 2017 using different search engines (Pubmed, Ovid, Scopus) to identified studies comparing the use of SPC versus standard UC after RARP. Identification and selection of the studies were conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis criteria. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as a summary measure, whereas the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary variables. RR was preferred in cases of a high number of events to avoid overestimation. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model to account for clinical heterogeneity. All statistical analyses were performed using Review manager 5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified and included in this systematic review, namely 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized prospective studies, and one retrospective study. A total of 966 RARP cases were collected for the cumulative analysis. Among them, 492 patients received standard UC and 474 SPC placement after RARP. UC patients had higher baseline PSA (WMD 0.44 ng/ml; p = 0.02). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was found to be significantly lower in patients with SPC at postoperative day 7 (WMD 0.53; 95% CI 0.13-0.93; p = 0.009). Regarding penile pain, a significant difference in favor of the SPC group was found at postoperative day 7 assessment (WMD 1.2; 95% CI 0.82-1.6; p < 0.001). More patients in the SPC group reported "not at all" or "minimal pain" at this time point (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06, 0.44; p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of continence recovery rate at 6-12 weeks between the groups (UC 78.7%, 88.2%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84, 1.01; p = 0.09). Similarly, no differences were found in terms of catheter-related issues (p = 0.17). However, UC patients had lower likelihood of overall complications (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that the use of SPC can be a viable option for postoperative urine drainage after RARP, as it can translate into decreased postoperative pain without carrying a significant higher risk of catheter-related complications. Further investigation seems to be warranted, ideally within the framework of a multicentre randomized study with standardized analysis of outcomes.

Suprapubic tube versus urethral catheter drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in the elderly population. The standard treatment is radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, urologists do not have consents on the postoperative urine drainage management (suprapubic tube (ST)/ urethral catheter (UC)). Thus, we try to compare ST drainage to UC drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy regarding to comfort, recovery rate and continence using the method of meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in Dec. 2017 on PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The authors independently reviewed the records to identify studies comparing ST with UC of patients underwent RARP. Meta-analysis was performed using the extracted data from the selected studies.

Results

Seven studies, including 3 RCTs, with a total of 946 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in our meta-analysis. Though there was no significant difference between the ST group and the UC group on postoperative pain (RR1.73, P 0.20), our study showed a significant improvement on bother or discomfort, defined as trouble in hygiene and sleep, caused by catheter when compared two groups at postoperative day (POD) 7 in ST group (RR2.05, P 0.006). There was no significant difference between the ST group and UC group on urinary continence (RR0.98, P 0.74) and emergency department visit (RR0.61, P 0.11). The rates of bladder neck contracture and other complications were very low in both groups.

Conclusion

Compared to UC, ST showed a weak advantage. So it might be a good choice to choose ST over RARP.