Open and robotic radical prostatectomy

Comparison of surgical approaches to radical prostatectomy in our series beyond oncological and functional outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared to those of open (ORP) and laparoscopic (LRP) surgery. The interest lies fundamentally in the quality-of-life (QoL) evaluation, postoperative recovery, and personal satisfaction of patients with the intervention (PS) beyond oncological and functional outcomes.

METHODS

Six hundred eighty-five RPs were performed in our center between 2011-2018 (17,8% ORP, 22,2% LRP and 60% RARP). Patients were prospectively assessed through follow-up until April 2020 and a multiple questionnaire at 12-months post-RP that included ICIQ-SF, SHIM, IPSS, IQL and questions about pain, postoperative recovery and PS. Also baseline and postoperative patient- and treatment-related data were collected, and binomial logistic regressions were performed for the 1 vs.1 comparisons (ORP vs. RARP and LRP vs. RARP).

RESULTS

RARP patients have overall fewer comorbidities, less tumor aggressiveness, more operative time requirements and more positive surgical margins than ORP and LRP patients. Nevertheless, RARP outperforms ORP in: hospital stay (days) (OR 0,86; 95% CI: 0,80-0,94), hemoglobin loss (OR 0,38; 95% CI: 0,30-0,47), transfusion rate (OR 0,18; 95% CI: 0,09-0,34), early complications (p = 0,001), IQL (OR 0,82; 95% CI: 0,69-0,98), erectile function (OR 0,41; 95% CI: 0,21-0,79), pain control (OR 0,82; 95% CI: 0,75-0,89), postoperative recovery (p < 0,001) and choice of a different approach (OR 5,55; 95% CI: 3,14-9,80). RARP is superior to LRP in: urinary continence (OR 0,55; 95% CI: 0,37-0,82), IPSS (OR 0,96; 95% CI: 0,93-0,98), IQL (OR 0,76; 95% CI: 0,66-0,88), erectile function (OR 0,52; 95% CI: 0,29-0,93), postoperative recovery (p = 0,02 and 0,004), PS (p = 0,005; 0,002; and 0,03) and choice of a different approach (OR 7,79; 95% CI: 4,63-13,13).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our study globally endorse a positive effectiveness of RARP over ORP and/or LRP, both on functional issues, postoperative recovery, QoL and PS. Oncologic results should still be improved.

Impacts of Neoadjuvant Hormonal Therapy Prior to Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy on Postoperative Hormonal- and Sexual-Related Quality of Life – Assessment by Patient-Reported Questionnaire

Purpose

Neoadjuvant hormonal therapy (HT) before radical prostatectomy (RP) is not recommended by current guidelines in terms of oncological outcomes. Despite this, neoadjuvant HT is sometimes conducted before RP for a small proportion of patients in clinical practice. This study evaluated the impacts of neoadjuvant HT on hormonal- and sexual-related quality of life (QOL) among patients who underwent robot-assisted RP (RARP).

Materials and Methods

Participants comprised 470 patients divided into a non-neoadjuvant HT group (n = 408) and a neoadjuvant HT group (n = 62). Hormonal- and sexual-related QOL were measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire.

Results

Hormonal summary scores at 6 and 9 months, function scores before and 3, 6, and 9 months and bother score at 6 months after RARP were significantly lower in the neoadjuvant HT group than in the non-neoadjuvant HT group. Sexual function scores were decreased in the neoadjuvant HT group compared to the non-neoadjuvant HT group before and 6 months after RARP. In the neoadjuvant HT group, sexual function at 3 months after RARP was significantly worse in patients with >5 months of neoadjuvant HT than in patients with ≤5 months of neoadjuvant HT. Conversely, sexual bother at 3 months after RARP was significantly worse in patients with ≤5 months of neoadjuvant HT than in patients with >5 months of neoadjuvant HT.

Conclusion

Vintage neoadjuvant HT prior to RARP should not be recommended due to not only oncological outcomes, but also the impacts on postoperative hormonal- and sexual-related QOL.

Development and internal validation of preoperative and postoperative nomograms predicting quadrifecta outcomes following robotic radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Literature on the factors predicting functional and oncological outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is sparse for the Indian population. Hence, the primary objective of this study was to develop preoperative and postoperative nomograms predicting these outcomes in patients with prostate cancer undergoing RARP.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis identified the predictors of quadrifecta outcomes, i.e., the patients who did not have complications, were continent, had negative surgical margins, and were biochemical recurrence free with at least 1 year of follow-up following RARP. We excluded the return of sexual potency as the majority of the patients in our series were sexually inactive preoperatively. We used the backward stepwise logistic regression analysis method to identify the predictors of quadrifecta. Preoperative and postoperative nomograms using these predictors were developed and validated with bootstrapping, goodness of fit, calibration plot, decision curve analysis (DCA), and theits receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 688 patients who underwent RARP, 399 were included in this study, and 123 (30.8%) of these achieved the quadrifecta outcomes. Preoperative nomogram was developed using four variables, i.e., prostate-specific antigen (PSA), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), biopsy Gleason score, and clinical stage. Postoperative nomogram included PSA, CCI, pathological tumor stage, tumor grade, and positive lymph node. Both the models were internally valid on bootstrapping, calibration plots, and goodness of fit. On the ROC analysis, preoperative and postoperative nomograms had an area under the curve of 0.71 and 0.79, respectively. On the DCA, at a threshold probability of 5%, both the models showed a net benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated accurate nomograms for predicting quadrifecta outcomes following RARP for the Indian population.

Prevalence of post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction and a review of the recommended therapeutic modalities

Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents one of the most commonly used first-line treatment modalities in men with localized prostate cancer. One of the most feared post-surgical complications is erectile dysfunction (ED), usually caused by direct damage to the cavernous nerves or due to neuropraxia. Penile rehabilitation is an emerging concept that was proposed to stimulate and accelerate recovery of erectile function after RP. The goal is to improve blood flow to the penis, increasing cavernous oxygenation and avoiding fibrosis. The most common used modalities include oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5-I), vacuum erection devices (VEDs), intracorporeal injection (ICI) therapy, medicated urethral system for erections (MUSE), and a combination of these treatments. For those patients with severe ED, ED refractory to medical therapy and/or seeking long term reliable results, the penile prosthesis implant remains an excellent alternative. We conducted a broad review of post-prostatectomy ED prevalence with different techniques and the success rates of the different therapeutic approaches.

A novel "three-port" trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Background

To introduce a novel “three-port” trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 300 patients with PCa who received surgical treatment between November 2010 and June 2015 at our institution. They were divided into group A, three-port LRP; group B, conventional four-five-port LRP; group C, open RP (ORP); and group D, robotic-assisted RP (RARP). A learning curve was analyzed by dividing patients of group A into the early and late stages.

Results

All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics except for the relatively smaller prostate volume in group A. The three-port LRP operations were performed successfully with only 8 cases of conversion to the conventional LRP. None of any severe complications or conversion to ORP occurred. In group A, the mean operative time (OT) duration was 113.8 min, the mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 94.2 ml, the mean drainage days was 4.0 days, the mean hospitalization was 5.1 days, and 27.8% of the prostate specimen margins (PSM) were positive. The differences of OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization, and transfusion in group A were statistically significant among the majority of the other groups (p < 0.05). After undergoing the early stages of a learning curve analysis in three-port LRP, the EBL was obviously decreased.

Conclusions

Three-port LRP is a novel technique that exhibits superior intraoperative advantages to the conventional LRP. Due to its less OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization, and transfusion with a shorter learning curve, it should be recommended and popularized in the clinical practice.

Comparison of the Transurethral Resection of the Prostate by Traditional Versus Preserved Urethral Mucosa of the Prostatic Apex

Background: Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease in elderly men. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is still the standard treatment for BPH. However, postoperative urinary incontinence (UI) is still one of the complications. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the TURP by traditional compared with preserved urethral mucosa of the prostatic apex (PUMPA). Materials and Methods: From July 2015 to June 2016, 80 patients with TURP were included and divided into the two groups: traditional nonpreserved urethral mucosa group (TURP group, n = 40) and the PUMPA group (PUMPA-TURP group, n = 40). This study identified the apex of the prostate and determined the cut position of mucosa. Then, we separated the preserved urethral mucosa, excised the hyperplastic prostate tissue, and trimmed the preserved urethral mucosa. Results: The rate of UI after PUMPA-TURP was significantly lower than that traditional TURP (0% vs 22.5%). The operative time was significantly shorter in the PUMPA-TURP group than traditional TURP group (50 ± 16.5 minutes vs 65 ± 18.5 minutes). The intraoperative bleeding loss was lower in the PUMPA-TURP group than traditional TURP group (280 ± 33 mL vs 190 ± 35 mL). International prostate symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and peak uroflowmetry data (Qmax) were similar between two groups. Conclusions: When compared with traditional TURP, PUMPA-TURP can reduce the occurrence of UI and intraoperative blood loss. Besides, PUMPA-TURP could shorten the operative time.