Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: ten years later, time for evidence-based foundation

A comparison of perioperative outcome between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single institution

PURPOSE

To compare perioperative and pathological results in different approaches of robotic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 206 patients diagnosed with pros¬tate cancer (PC) from June 2016 to October 2017 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nan¬jing Medical University. A total of 132 cases underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP) including 54 patients on transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Tp-RLRP) and 78 on extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-RLRP). Meanwhile, 74 patients performed with extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (Ep-LPR) were also included. Peri¬operative and pathological data were compared among these groups.

RESULTS

All operations were completed without conversion. There was no signifi¬cant difference in basic and pathological characteristics of patients between each two groups. In Tp-RLRP vs. Ep-RLRP: Significant differences were found in the comparison in to¬tal operation time [235.98 ± 59.16 vs. 180.45 ± 50.27 min, P = 0.00], estimated blood loss (EBL) [399.07 ± 519.57 vs. 254.49 ± 308.05 mL, P = 0.0473], postoperative pelvic drainage time [5.37 ± 2.33 vs. 4.24 ± 3.08 d, P = 0.0237] and postoperative length of stay [8.15 ± 3.30 vs. 6.49 ± 3.49 d, P = 0.0068] while no significant differences were detected in other variables. In Ep-RLRP vs. Ep-LPR: Longer total operation time was observed in Ep-RLRP when compared to Ep-LPR [180.45 ± 50.27 vs. 143.80 ± 33.13 min, P = 0.000]. No significant differences were observed in other variables.

CONCLUSION

In RLRP, Ep-RLRP was proved a safe and effective approach based on the perioperative results compared to Tp-RLRP. Ep-RLRP and Ep-LPR provides equivalent perioperative and pathological outcomes.

Direct-to-consumer Internet promotion of robotic prostatectomy exhibits varying quality of information

Robotic surgery to remove a cancerous prostate has become a popular treatment. Internet marketing of this surgery provides an intriguing case study of direct-to-consumer promotions of medical devices, which are more loosely regulated than pharmaceutical promotions. We investigated whether the claims made in online promotions of robotic prostatectomy were consistent with evidence from comparative effectiveness studies. After performing a search and cross-sectional analysis of websites that mentioned the procedure, we found that many sites claimed benefits that were unsupported by evidence and that 42 percent of the sites failed to mention risks. Most sites were published by hospitals and physicians, which the public may regard as more objective than pages published by manufacturers. Unbalanced information may inappropriately raise patients' expectations. Increasing enforcement and regulation of online promotions may be beyond the capabilities of federal authorities. Thus, the most feasible solution may be for the government and medical societies to promote the production of balanced educational material.

[Robot technology in the Italian Health-CARE system: cost-efficacy economic analysis]

BACKGROUND

Robotic technology is used in multiple fields of surgery, especially radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the introduction of robotic technology in the Italian Public Heath-care context, from the perspective of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA). An economic analysis that compares the costs and effectiveness of the method was developed. Data were compared with those of the most important international literature, analyzing structural and organizational problems related to the method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of literature on tertiary literature (Health Technology Assessment reports) and secondary (systematic reviews) published since 2002 was conducted. The review was also conducted on more recent primary literature regarding the clinical effectiveness and the economic analysis in the fields of surgery where Da Vinci robot is most promising.

RESULTS

18 studies were selected out of a total of 65 evaluated. The "Break-Even Point" (BEP) is the minimum number of cases needed to be treated in order to achieve a balance between costs and revenues, below which the system is losing money. It was calculated that the total fixed costs are € 378,000 and variable costs are € 3,810 per surgery. Considering that the current value of DRG (Diagnosis-Related Group) refunded by the public Health-care system is actually € 4,553, the BEP would be achieved performing 508 surgeries, so that the robotic technology does not generate neither profit nor loss.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to demonstrate the superiority of robotic surgery in terms of efficacy. The robotic surgery is safe and effective only if performed by surgical teams with relevant experience. Considering the reported case of an Italian University Hospital with public Health-care system refund, the BEP target of 508 radical prostatectomies could be achieved after a few years. The use of the robot in multiple fields on one hand shortens recovery time costs, but on the other hand increases costs due to organizational issues. The value of the DRG refund does not appear adequate to new robotic technology.

Arguments against investing widely in robotic prostatectomy in Canada: a wrong focus on tool box rather than surgical expertise

Collapse

Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) is an important gap of the literature related to the surgical treatment of the clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa).

AIM

To provide the first prospective randomized comparison on the functional and oncological outcomes of LRP and RALRP for the treatment of the clinically localized PCa.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2008, 128 consecutive male patients were randomized in two groups and treated by a single experienced surgeon with traditional LRP (Group I-64 patients) or RALRP (Group II-64 patients) in all cases with intent of bilateral intrafascial nerve sparing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary end point was to compare the 12 months erectile function (EF) outcomes. Complication rates, continence outcomes, and oncological results were also compared. The sample size of our study was able, with an adequate power (1-beta > 0.90), to recognize as significant large differences (above 0.30) between incidence proportions of considered outcomes.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were observed for operating time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, rates of positive surgical margins, rates of biochemical recurrence, continence, and time to continence. However, the 12-month evaluation of capability for intercourse (with or without phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors) showed a clear and significant advantage of RALRP (32% vs. 77%, P < 0.0001). Time to capability for intercourse was significantly shorter for RALRP. Rates of return to baseline International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-6) EF domain score questionnaires (questions 1-5 and 15) (25% vs. 58%) and to IIEF-6 > 17 (38% vs. 63%) were also significantly higher for RALRP (P = 0.0002 and P = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study offers the first high-level evidence that RALRP provides significantly better EF recovery than LRP without hindering the oncologic radicality of the procedure. Larger RCTs are needed to confirm if a new gold-standard treatment in the field of RP has risen.

Survey of urologic laparoscopic practice patterns in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery is taking a greater role in the management of many urologic diseases. We performed a survey whose aim was to define laparoscopic practice patterns among urologists in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In March 2009, detailed questionnaires about urologic laparoscopic practice patterns were distributed to 352 urologists who were working in Saudi Arabia. The questions related to age, residency training, and amount of laparoscopy performed.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 42%. A total of 21% of certified urologists in Saudi Arabia performed no laparoscopy, 24.8% devoted less than 5% of their practice time, and 54.3% devoted 5% or more of their practice time to laparoscopic surgery. Of the respondents, 27.5% stated that they had adequate training during residency to perform laparoscopy. Both age and time in practice were inversely related to the amount of time devoted to laparoscopy (P = 0.001). Of those who were affiliated with a university, 70% devoted more than 5% of their operative time to laparoscopy. Urologists in the Ministry of Health were the least to perform a significant volume of laparoscopy. The two most important reasons mentioned for performing laparoscopy were a faster recovery period and reduced morbidity. The main laparoscopic procedures, according to the proportion of urologists who perform laparoscopic surgery, were varicocelectomy, 38%; simple nephrectomy, 27%; renal cyst decortications, 23%; adrenalectomy, 20%; radical nephrectomy, 20%; pyeloplasty, 18%; and orchidopexy, 17%.

CONCLUSIONS

Urologic laparoscopic practice in Saudi Arabia is still in its early stages. Accordingly, more laparoscopic procedures should be implemented in the local training programs.