Robotic radical prostatectomy: analysis of midterm pathologic and oncologic outcomes: A historical series from a high-volume center

Single port robot-assisted radical and simple prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Aim of our study was to review the current evidence on single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) and SP robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (SP-RASP) procedures.

METHODS

A comprehensive bibliographic search on multiple databases was conducted in July 2023. Studies were included if they assessed patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer or candidate for benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery (P) who underwent SP-RARP or SP-RASP, respectively, (I), compared or not with other surgical techniques (C), evaluating perioperative, oncological, or functional outcomes (O). Prospective and retrospective original articles were included (S). A meta-analysis of comparative studies between SP-RARP and MP-RARP was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies investigating 1400 patients were included in our systematic review, 18 were related to SP-RARP while 3 to SP-RASP. Only 8 comparative studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Mean follow-up was 8.1 (±5.8) months. Similar outcomes were observed for SP-RARP and MP-RARP in terms of operative time, catheterization time, pain score, complications rate, continence and potency rates, positive surgical margin, and biochemical recurrence. Length of hospital stay was shorter in the SP group after sensitivity analysis (WMD -0.58, 95% IC -1.17 to -0.9, p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis by extraperitoneal approach did not show any statistical difference, except for a lower positive margins rate in the SP extraperitoneal technique compared to MP-RARP. Overall, SP-RASP exhibited shorter hospital stay and lower rate of de novo urinary incontinence when compared to other techniques, while no differences were reported in terms of postoperative International Prostate Symptom Score, post void residual and maximum flow.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall comparable oncological, functional, and perioperative outcomes can be achieved with SP platform. Subgroup analysis by different approaches did not reveal significant variations in outcomes. However, the retrospective nature of the studies, the limited follow-up, and the relatively small sample size of selected Centers may impact these results.

Intravoxel incoherent motion predicts positive surgical margins and Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Whether Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) can be used as a predictive tool of positive surgical margins (PSMs) and Gleason score (GS) upgrading in prostate cancer (PCa) patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) still remains unclear. The aim of this study is to explore the ability of IVIM and clinical characteristics to predict PSMs and GS upgrading.

METHODS

A total of 106 PCa patients after RP who underwent pelvic mpMRI (multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging) between January 2016 and December 2021 and met the requirements were retrospectively included in our study. IVIM parameters were obtained using GE Functool post-processing software. Logistic regression models were fitted to confirm the predictive risk factor of PSMs and GS upgrading. The area under the curve and fourfold contingency table were used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of IVIM and clinical parameters.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that percent of positive cores, apparent diffusion coefficient and molecular diffusion coefficient (D) were independent predictors of PSMs (Odds Ratio (OR) were 6.07, 3.62 and 3.16, respectively), Biopsy GS and pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*) were independent predictors of GS upgrading (OR were 0.563 and 7.15, respectively). The fourfold contingency table suggested that combined diagnosis increased the ability of predicting PSMs but had no advantage in predicting GS upgrading except the sensitivity from 57.14 to 91.43%.

CONCLUSIONS

IVIM showed good performance in predicting PSMs and GS upgrading. Combining IVIM and clinical factors enhanced the performance of predicting PSMs, which may contribute to clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the first separate systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Due to the lack of sufficient evidence, it is not clear whether robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is better for prostate cancer. The authors conducted this study by separately pooling and analysing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between RARP and LRP.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in March 2022 using Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 46 articles were included, including 4 from 3 RCTs and 42 from non-randomised studies. For RCTs, meta-analysis showed that RARP and LRP were similar in blood loss, catheter indwelling time, overall complication rate, overall positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence rates, but quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies showed that RARP was associated with less blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-71.99, 95% CI -99.37 to -44.61, P <0.001], shorter catheterization duration (WMD=-1.03, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.22, P =0.010), shorter hospital stay (WMD=-0.41, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.13, P =0.004), lower transfusion rate (OR=0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.56, P <0.001), lower overall complication rate (OR=0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96, P =0.020), and lower biochemical recurrence rate (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.92, P =0.004), compared with LRP. Both meta-analysis of RCTs and quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies showed that RARP was associated with improved functional outcomes. From the results of the meta-analysis of RCTs, RARP was higher than LRP in terms of overall continence recovery [odds ratio (OR)=1.60, 95% CI 1.16-2.20, P =0.004), overall erectile function recovery (OR=4.07, 95% CI 2.51-6.60, P <0.001), continence recovery at 1 month (OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.25-3.66, P =0.005), 3 (OR=1.51, 95% CI 1.12-2.02, P =0.006), 6 (OR=2.66, 95% CI 1.31-5.40, P =0.007), and 12 months (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.36-9.13, P =0.010) postoperatively, and potency recovery at 3 (OR=4.25, 95% CI 1.67-10.82, P =0.002), 6 (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.31-9.44, P =0.010), and 12 months (OR=3.59, 95% CI 1.78-7.27, P <0.001) postoperatively, which were consistent with the quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies. When sensitivity analysis was performed, the results remained largely unchanged, but the heterogeneity among studies was greatly reduced.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that RARP can improve functional outcomes compared with LRP. Meanwhile, RARP has potential advantages in perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

Long-term comparative outcome analysis of a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with retropubic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon

We aimed to report a comprehensive outcome analysis of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies (RALP) performed by a single surgeon and compared it to retropubic radical prostatectomies (RRP) done by the same surgeon in a high-volume center. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected prospectively and compared with retrospective retropubic radical prostatectomy data. Perioperative, oncological data, and functional results in the first year were compared between the two groups. There were 547 RARPs between 4th August 2011 and 31st December 2018, and 428 RRPs between 1st January 1996 and 31st December 2009 which were included in this review. While the operation time was in favour of the open group (196 vs 160 min, p < 0.01), the estimated blood loss (188 vs 316 ml, p < 0.01), blood transfusion rate (3% vs 7%, p = 0.021), hospital stay (4 days vs 7 days), and mean catheter duration (12 vs 15 days) were in favour of the robotic group. Majority of the complications belonged to Clavien-Dindo group II in both groups and the rates were not significantly different (p = 0.33). The 12-month continence rate was in favour of the RALP group (98.3% vs 99.2%, p < 0.01). Overall survival of the RALP cohort at 24 months was 99.8%, 60 months 96.1%, 84 months 87.3%, 96 months 81.3%), and 108 months was 79.5%. Overall survival at 24 months was 99.8%, 60 months 96.1%, 84 months 87.3%, 96 months 81.3%, and 108 months 79.5%. RALP is a safe, minimally invasive, technically feasible procedure with comparable functional and oncological outcomes. Our study showed superior perioperative and continence outcomes in RALP. However, despite its growing popularity, RRP still remains the gold standard in India due to its affordability and accessibility.