Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Versus Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy for Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: Comparison of Short-Term Biochemical Recurrence-Free Survival

A clinical evaluation of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in located prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a prevalent malignant tumor affecting the male reproductive system and there are mainly three widely accepted PCa surgery types in current clinical treatment: open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Here, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effect of RARP for PCa patients compared with ORP and LRP based on the context of PCa encompass two dimensions: oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence (BCR) and positive surgical margin (PSM)) and functional outcomes (urinary continence and recovery of erectile function) in this network meta-analysis (NMA). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched in January 7, 2024. 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 72 non-RCTs were included. RARP displayed significant positive effect on lower BCR and better recovery of erectile function but no significant differences existed among three surgery types for PSM and urinary continence.

Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies

The study aims to synthesize all available prospective comparative studies and reports the latest systematic analysis and updated evidence comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) for perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were retrieved up to March 2023. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective comparative studies were included, and weighted mean differences (WMD) and odds ratios (OR) were used to evaluate the pooled results. Twenty-one articles were included in the present meta-analysis. The results indicated that compared to ORP, RARP had longer operative time (OT) (WMD: 51.41 min; 95%CI: 28.33, 74.48; p < 0.0001), reduced blood loss (WMD: -516.59 mL; 95%CI: -578.31, -454.88; p < 0.00001), decreased transfusion rate (OR: 0.23; 95%CI: 0.18, 0.30; p < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.59 days; 95%CI: -2.69, -0.49; p = 0.005), fewer overall complications (OR: 0.61; 95%CI: 0.45, 0.83; p = 0.001), and higher nerve sparing rate (OR: 1.64; 95%CI: 1.26, 2.13; p = 0.0003), as well as was more beneficial to postoperative erectile function recovery and biochemical recurrence (BCR). However, no significant disparities were noted in major complications, postoperative urinary continence recovery, or positive surgical margin (PSM) rates. RARP was superior to ORP in terms of hospital stay, blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, nerve sparing, postoperative erectile function recovery, and BCR. It is a safe and effective surgical approach to the treatment of clinically localized PCa.

Pentafecta outcomes of robotic laparoscopically assisted radical prostatectomy during the initial experience in a university hospital

Background

Robotic laparoscopically assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is an option for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the pentafecta outcomes (biochemical recurrence, continence, potency, surgical complications and surgical margins) in patients undergoing RARP during the initial experience in a university hospital.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients who had RARP for localized prostate adenocarcinoma at a university hospital from August 2013 to October 2019 to evaluate pentafecta outcomes (biochemical recurrence, continence, potency, surgical complications and surgical margins). Data were collected and stored via Microsoft Office Excel program and analyzed using SPSS Software, version 20.0.

Results

One hundred and sixty-three RARP were performed, the mean age is 64.16 ± 6.54 years, PSA 6.20 (IQR = 4.91–8.95) ng/dl, BMI 27.14 (IQR = 24.22–29.26) kg/m2, D’Amico risk classification was 35 (22.3%) low risk, 81 (51.6%) intermediate risk and 41 (26.1%) high risk. One hundred and fifty-four patients entered the analysis of pentafecta with a rate of 38.3% reaching this outcome. Complications: Twenty-three (14.1%) patients had minor complications (Clavien I and II) and eight patients had major complications (Clavien IIIa, IIIb and IVa). Surgical margins were negative in 69.9% of patients. The biochemical recurrence-free rate was 89.5%. The overall continence rate was 93.5%, and the potency rate was 63.5%. Multivariate analysis showed that T2 patients are 2.7 times more likely to achieve pentafecta outcome than patients ≥ T3 (p < 0.05), while younger age and lower BMI data were found as a protective factor with RR of 0.95 and 0.94, respectively.

Conclusions

Preliminary pentafecta outcome of RARP in this university hospital is promising.

Transition from open to robotically assisted approach on radical prostatectomies in Iceland. A nationwide, population-based study

OBJECTIVES

In January 2015, radical prostatectomies (RPs) in Iceland changed almost entirely from being performed as open (ORP) to robotically assisted (RARP). This study assesses early surgical and short-term oncological outcome after ORP and RARP and evaluates the safety of transition between the two surgical techniques.

METHODS

The study population involved 160/163 (98%) of all radical prostatectomies performed in Iceland between January 2013 and April 2016. Data on patients was collected retrospectively from medical records. Early surgical and short-term oncological outcomes were compared between the two surgical techniques.

RESULTS

The ORP and RARP cohorts were comparable with respect to all clinical and pathological variables, except for median prostate volume, which was 45 mL in the ORP cohort and 37 mL in the RARP cohort (p = 0.03). Intraoperative blood loss was higher, hospital stay longer, catheterization time longer, and risk of complications within 30 days of surgery higher after ORP than RARP (p < 0.01). The operative time, positive surgical margin rate and recurrence free survival, within two years, was comparable between the two surgical techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The transition from ORP to RARP in Iceland was safe and resulted in improved early surgical outcome. However, no conclusion can be drawn from this study regarding oncological outcome, due to short follow up and a small sample size.

Functional and Oncological Outcomes After Open Versus Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localised Prostate Cancer: 8-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localised prostate cancer. Evidence on whether different surgical techniques can affect mortality rates is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate functional and oncological outcomes 8 yr after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We enrolled 4003 patients in a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial comparing RALP and RRP in 14 Swedish centres between 2008 and 2011. Data for functional outcomes were assessed via validated patient questionnaires administered preoperatively and at 12 and 24 mo and 8 yr after surgery.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The primary endpoint was urinary incontinence. Functional outcomes at 8 yr were analysed using the modified Poisson regression approach.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Urinary incontinence was not significantly different at 8 yr after surgery between RALP and RRP (27% vs 29%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.23). Erectile dysfunction was significantly lower in the RALP group (66% vs 70%; aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99). Prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) was significantly lower in the RALP group at 8 yr after surgery (40/2699 vs 25/885; aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34-0.93). Differences in oncological outcomes were mainly seen in the group with high D'Amico risk, with a lower risk of positive surgical margins (21% vs 34%), biochemical recurrence (51% vs 69%), and PCSM (14/220 vs 11/77) for RALP versus RRP. The main limitation is the nonrandomised design.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective multicentre controlled trial, PCSM at 8 yr after surgery was lower for RALP in comparison to RRP. A causal relationship between surgical technique and mortality cannot be inferred, but the result confirms that RALP is oncologically safe. Taken together with better short-term results reported elsewhere, our findings confirm that implementation of RALP may continue.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our study comparing two surgical techniques for removal of the prostate for localised prostate cancer shows that a robot-assisted minimally invasive technique is safe in the long term. Together with previous results showing some better short-term effects with this approach, our findings support continued use of robot-assisted surgery.

Biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy according to nadir prostate specific antigen value

The hypersensitive prostate specific antigen (PSA) test can measure in 0.01 ng/mL units, and its efficacy for screening after radical prostatectomy (RP) has been reported. In this study, we assessed patients who underwent RP to evaluate whether the nadir value affects biochemical recurrence (BCR). From 1995 to 2014, patients classified as N0 who had negative resection margins and a nadir PSA of less than 0.2 ng/mL were evaluated. The characteristics, pathological outcomes, PSA after RP, and BCR were assessed. A total of 1483 patients were enrolled. Among them, 323 (21.78%) patients showed BCR after RP. The mean age of the BCR group was 63.86±7.31 years, and while that of the no-recurrence group was 64.06±6.82 years (P = 0.645). The mean preoperative PSA of the BCR group was 9.75±6.92 ng/mL and that of the no-recurrence group was 6.71±5.19 ng/mL (P < 0.001). The mean time to nadir (TTN) in the BCR group was 4.64±7.65 months, while that in the no-recurrence group was 7.43±12.46 months (P < 0.001). The mean PSA nadir value was 0.035±0.034 ng/mL in the BCR group and 0.014±0.009 ng/mL in the no-recurrence group (P < 0.001). In multivariable Cox regression analyses, Gleason score, positive biopsy core percentages, minimal invasive surgery, nadir PSA value, and TTN were independently associated with BCR. The mean BCR occurred at 48.23±2.01 months after RP, and there was a significant difference in BCR occurrence according to the nadir PSA value (P < 0.001). A high PSA nadir value and short TTN may predict the risk of BCR after successful RP, aiding the identification of candidates for adjuvant or salvage therapies after RP.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic-assisted versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a single cancer center experience

Prostate cancer (PCa) treatment has been greatly impacted by the robotic surgery. The economics literature about PCa is scarce. We aim to carry-out cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) using the "time-driven activity-based cost" methodology. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in 2013 were retrospectively analyzed in a cancer center over a 5-year period. Fifty-six patients underwent RALP and 149 patients underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). The amounts were subject to a 5% discount as correction of monetary value considering time elapsed. Calculation of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICER) related to events avoided and the Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) related to "QALY saved" were performed. QALY was performed using values of utility and "disutility" weights from the "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry". Hypothetical cohorts were simulated with 1000 patients in each group, based on the treatment outcomes. Total and average costs were R$1,903,671.93, and R$12,776.32 for the RRP group, and R$1,373,987.26, and R$24,535.49 for the RALP group, respectively. The costs to treat the hypothetical cohorts were R$10,010,582.35 for RRP, and R$19,224,195.90 for RALP. ICER calculation evidenced R$9,213,613.55 of difference between groups. ICUR was R$ 22,690.83 per QALY saved. Limitations were the lack of cost-effectiveness analyses related to re-hospitalization rates and complications, single center perspective, and currency-translation differences. Medical fees were not included. RALP showed advantages in cost-effectiveness and cost-utility over RRP in the long term. Despite the increased costs to the introduction of robotic technology, its adoption should be encouraged due to the gains.

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparative study with 19-month follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to compare the surgical outcomes of retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP).

METHODS

We included patients with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent RS-RARP or ORP and met our inclusion criteria. We compared the perioperative, oncological, and continence outcomes between both surgical approaches. Continence function was assessed using the validated International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form. Continence was defined as using 0-1 safety pad per day. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive rises in serum PSA more than 0.2 ng/mL. Events of local recurrence, distant metastasis, and cancer death were reported and compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Between 1 June 2013 and 1 October 1 2016, 184 men were enrolled, of whom 125 underwent RS-RARP and 59 underwent ORP. Baseline demographic and pathological characteristics were similar between both groups (P>0.05). Patients in RS-RARP group had significantly lower blood loss, fewer transfusion rates, lower VAS score, and shorter hospital stay than patients in ORP group (P<0.05). Major complications (≥grade 3b) did not differ between both groups (P=0.121). Positive surgical margins were 28.8% and 24.8% in ORP and RS-RARP, respectively (P=0.494). The BCR free-survival rates in ORP and RS-RARP at 1-year was 87.3% and 92.3%, respectively (Log-rank, P=0.740). At 1-, 6-, and 12-month after surgery, 42.4%, 79.7%, and 84.7% of men undergoing ORP were continent, compared with 72.8%, 90.4%, and 92% undergoing RS-RARP, respectively. Men in RS-RARP group achieved faster recovery of urinary continence compared to men in ORP group (Log-rank, P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RS-RARP had better perioperative outcomes and faster recovery of urinary continence compared with ORP. Short-term oncological outcomes were comparable between both surgical approaches.

Functionalized nano-targeted moieties in management of prostate cancer

Multimodal properties of nanoparticles, such as simultaneously carrying drugs and/or diagnostic probes for site-specific delivery, make them excellent carriers for diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. Advantages are high permeability and selectivity to malignant cells to reduce systemic toxicity of chemotherapeutic drugs. Based on a review of current literature, the lack of efficient and highly specific prostate cancer cell targeting moieties is hindering successful in vivo prostate cancer-targeted drug delivery systems. Highly specific nano-targeting moieties as drug delivery vehicles might improve chemotherapeutic delivery via targeting to specific receptors expressed on the surface of prostate cancer cells. This review describes nano-targeting moieties for management of prostate cancer and its cancer stem cells. Descriptions of targeting moieties using anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen, aptamer, anti-cluster of differentiation 24/44, folic acid and other targeting strategies are highlighted. Current research results are promising and may yield development of next-generation nanoscale theragnostic targeted modalities for prostate cancer treatment.

Experience of one single surgeon with the first 500 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy cases in mainland China

Objectives

To summarize the experience of the first 500 robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) cases by one surgeon and analyze the influencing factors of functional and oncological outcomes.

Methods

Between April 2012 and October 2017, 500 patients who underwent RALP were included and divided sequentially into five equal groups. Patients’ preoperative, perioperative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and evaluated, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze and compare the effect of surgeon experience by case.

Results

There is a statistically significant reduction in operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss and postoperative hospital stay time (all p<0.001) with the increased experience. The results show that experience was the most important influencing factor in both operative time and blood loss. Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) might increase the operative time. The total positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 21.8%. The PSM rate in pT3 tumors was significantly higher than that in pT2 tumors (12.0% vs. 37.1%, p<0.001). The 5-year biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free rate was 70.8%. The results of Cox regression showed that preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), postoperative Gleason score (GS), and pathologic T stage were independent risk factors for BCR.

Conclusion

After approximately 200 cases, the surgeon reached a plateau for RALP, but the outcomes could still improve after more cases. The surgeon's experience was the most important influencing factor for both operative time and blood loss. PSM rate was mainly determined by tumor stage rather than by operation experience.

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) comparing with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with clinically localized prostate cancer through all prospective comparative studies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in August 2018 using the Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies including patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for study inclusion. Cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and 9 prospective studies were included in this systematic review. There were no significant differences between RARP/LRP and ORP in overall complication rate, major complication rate, overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, ≤pT2 tumor PSM rate, ≥pT3 tumor PSM rate. Moreover, RARP/LRP and ORP showed similarity in biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 12, 24 months postoperatively. Urinary continence and erectile function at 12 months postoperatively between RARP and ORP are also comparable. RARP/LRP were associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss [mean difference (MD) -749.67, 95% CI -1038.52 to -460.82, P = .001], lower transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30, P < .001) and less hospitalization duration (MD -1.18, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.19, P = .02). And RARP/LRP required more operative time (MD 50.02, 95% CI 6.50 to 93.55, P = .02) and cost.

CONCLUSION

RARP/LRP is associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rate and less hospitalization duration. The available data were insufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of postoperative complications, functional and oncologic outcomes.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Previous trials have found similar early outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy. We report functional and oncological postoperative outcomes up to 24 months after surgery for these two surgical techniques.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled phase 3 study, men who had newly diagnosed clinically localised prostate cancer and who had chosen surgery as their treatment approach, and were aged between 35 years and 70 years were eligible and recruited from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (Brisbane, QLD, Australia). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to have either robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy or open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Randomisation was computer generated and occurred in blocks of ten. This was an open trial; however, study investigators involved in data analysis were masked to each patient's surgical treatment. Primary outcomes were urinary function (urinary domain of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC]) and sexual function (sexual domain of EPIC and International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire [IIEF]) at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months and oncological outcome (biochemical recurrence and imaging evidence of progression). The trial was powered to assess health-related and domain-specific quality-of-life outcomes over 24 months. All analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000661976.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 23, 2010, and Nov 25, 2014, 326 men were enrolled, of whom 163 were randomly assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 163 to open radical retropubic prostatectomy. 18 withdrew (12 assigned to radical retropubic prostatectomy and six assigned to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy); thus, 151 in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and 157 in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group proceeded to surgery. At the 24-month follow-up time point, 150 men remained in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group and 146 remained in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group. Urinary function scores did not differ significantly between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (88·68 [95% CI 86·79-90·58] vs 88·45 [86·54-90·36]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (90·76 [88·89-92·62] vs 91·53 [90·07-92·98]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (91·33 [89·64-93·03] vs 90·86 [89·01-92·70]; p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001). Sexual function scores were not significantly different between robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy at 6 months post-surgery (EPIC: 37·40 [33·60-41·19] vs 38·63 [34·76-42·49], p1=0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 29·75 [26·66-32·84] vs 29·78 [26·41-33·16], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001), 12 months post-surgery (EPIC: 42·28 [38·05-46·51] vs 42·51 [38·29-46·72], p1<0·0001, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·10 [29·59-36·61] vs 33·50 [29·87-37·13], p1=0·0002, p2<0·0001), or 24 months post-surgery (EPIC: 45·70 [41·17-50·23] vs 46·90 [42·20-51·60], p1=0·0003, p2<0·0001; IIEF: 33·95 [30·11-37·78] vs 33·89 [29·82-37·96], p1=0·0003, p2=0·0004). Equivalence testing on the difference between the proportion of biochemical recurrences between the two groups (13 [9%] in the open radical retropubic prostatectomy group vs four [3%] in the robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group) showed that equality between the two techniques could not be established based on a 90% CI with a prespecified margin of 10%. However, a superiority test showed that the two proportions were significantly different (p=0·0199). Equivalence testing on the proportion of patients who had imaging evidence of progression revealed that the two groups were not significantly different (p=0·2956).

INTERPRETATION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and open radical retropubic prostatectomy yielded similar functional outcomes at 24 months. We advise caution in interpreting the oncological outcomes of our study because of the absence of standardisation in postoperative management between the two trial groups and the use of additional cancer treatments. Clinicians and patients should view the benefits of a robotic approach as being largely related to its minimally invasive nature.

FUNDING

Cancer Council Queensland.

Clinical outcomes and costs of robotic surgery in prostate cancer: a multiinstitutional study in Korea

Background

This study compared the surgical, functional, and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in Korean men.

Methods

The study population included 864 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the departments of urology of five tertiary hospitals between 2010 and 2011. RALP, LRP, and RRP perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes as well as complications were assessed. Medical cost data were analyzed for 682 of 864 patients.

Results

No significant differences were found among the three groups regarding the length of stay, biochemical recurrence, complications, and metastasis. The RALP group had a significantly higher rate of pelvic lymph node dissection (64.6% vs. 35.3% or 53.3%, P value <0.0001) and bilateral nerve-sparing procedures (15.7% vs. 10.0% or 8.9%, P value <0.0001) and less blood loss (median 250 mL vs. 300 mL or 700 mL, P value <0.0001) than the LRP and RRP groups. The 12-month continence recovery rate was higher in the RALP group (92.1%) than in the LRP (86.5%) and RRP (84.4%) groups (P value <0.0001). Medical costs for RALP were approximately twofold to threefold higher than those for LRP or RRP.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that surgical and functional outcomes are better with robot-assisted surgery than with laparoscopic or open surgery in terms of estimated blood loss and urinary continence; however, no differences were found among groups in terms of biochemical recurrence and the rate of complications.

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update

CONTEXT

The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently, a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RARP with RRP. Outcomes of interest included perioperative, pathologic variables and complications.

RESULTS

78 studies assessing RARP vs. RRP were included for meta-analysis. Although patients underwent RRP have shorter operative time than RARP (WMD: 39.85 minutes; P < 0.001), patients underwent RARP have less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -507.67ml; P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR = 0.13; P < 0.001), shorter time to remove catheter (WMD = -3.04day; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.62day; P < 0.001), lower PSM rates (OR:0.88; P = 0.04), fewer positive lymph nodes (OR:0.45;P < 0.001), fewer overall complications (OR:0.43; P < 0.001), higher 3- and 12-mo potent recovery rate (OR:3.19;P = 0.02; OR:2.37; P = 0.005, respectively), and lower readmission rate (OR:0.70, P = 0.03). The biochemical recurrence free survival of RARP is better than RRP (OR:1.33, P = 0.04). All the other calculated results are similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that RARP appears to be safe and effective to its counterpart RRP in selected patients.

Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis

No consensus has been attained regarding the utility of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We carried out a network meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis comparing RRP, LRP and RALRP on peri-operative and functional outcome measures. Electronic databases were searched for either randomized clinical trials or cohort studies comparing RALRP either with LRP or RRP in patients with localized PCa. Outcome measures were as follows: overall, pT2 and pT3-positive surgical margins (PSMs); biochemical recurrence (BCR); complication rates; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion rate; continence and potency rates; duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Publication bias, risk of bias and inconsistency were assessed. Inverse heterogeneity model was used for analysis. A total of 45 studies were included for the final analysis. We observed that RALRP and LRP did not differ significantly from RRP with regard to the following outcomes: overall PSM; pT2 and pT3 PSMs; OT; complication rate; continence and potency rates; total blood loss and hospital stay. Duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in RALRP than LRP and RRP while significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion and BCR were observed for both RALRP and LRP in comparison with RRP. To conclude, similar functional, operative and oncologic outcomes were observed for both RALRP and LRP compared to RRP.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is increasingly used worldwide, but comparisons of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes among RARP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) remain inconsistent.

Material/Methods

Systematic literature searches were conducted using EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Science Direct/Elsevier up to April 2017. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager and Stata software.

Results

We included 33 studies. Meta-analysis revealed that blood loss, transfusion rate, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rate were significantly lower following RARP compared with LRP (SMD (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.31 [0.01, 0.61]; combined ORs (95% CI) 5.32 [1.29, 21.98]; 1.27 [1.10, 1.46]) and ORP (SMD (95% CI) 0.75 [0.30, 1.21]; and combined ORs (95% CI) 3.44 [1.21, 9.79]); positive surgical margin (PSM) rates were significantly lower following RARP compared with LRP (combined ORs (95% CI) 1.27 [1.10, 1.46]), but not ORP. Operation time was also shorter for RARP than for LRP. The rates of nerve-sparing, recovery of complete urinary continence, and recovery of erectile function were significantly higher following RARP compared with LRP (combined ORs (95% CI) 0.55 [0.31, 0.95]; 0.66 [0.55, 0.78]; 0.46 [0.30, 0.71]) and ORP (combined ORs (95% CI) 0.36 [0.21, 0.63]; 0.33 [0.15, 0.74]; 0.65 [0.37, 1.14]).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates that RARP results in better overall outcomes than LRP and ORP in terms of blood loss, transfusion rate, nerve sparing, urinary continence and erectile dysfunction recovery, and suggests that RARP offers better results than LRP and ORP in treatment of prostate cancer. However, studies with larger sample sizes and long-term results are needed.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy significantly reduced biochemical recurrence compared to retro pubic radical prostatectomy

Background

The pathological and oncological outcomes of retro-pubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have not been sufficiently investigated.

Methods

Treatment-naïve patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) (n = 908; RRP, n = 490; and RARP, n = 418) were enrolled in the study. The clinicopathological outcomes, rate and localization of the positive surgical margin (PSM), localization of PSM, and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival groups were compared between RRP and RARP.

Results

The median patient age and serum PSA level (ng/mL) at diagnosis were 67 years and 7.9 ng/ml, respectively, for RRP, and 67 years and 7.6 ng/ml, respectively, for RARP. The overall PSM rate with RARP was 21%, which was 11% for pT2a, 12% for pT2b, 9.8% for pT2c, 43% for pT3a, 55% for pT3b, and 0% for pT4. The overall PSM rate with RRP was 44%, which was 12% for pT2a, 18% for pT2b, 43% for pT2c, 78% for pT3a, 50% for pT3b, and 40% for pT4. The PSM rate was significantly lower for RARP in men with pT2c and pT3a (p < 0.0001 for both). Multivariate analysis showed that RARP reduced the risk of BCR (hazard ratio; 0.6, p = 0.009).

Conclusions

RARP versus RRP is associated with an improved PSM rate and BCR. To examine the cancer-specific survival, further investigations are needed.

Community-based Outcomes of Open versus Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Identifying the optimal surgical approach for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) managed in the community setting remains controversial due to the lack of robust, prospective data.

OBJECTIVE

To assess surgical outcomes and changes in urinary and sexual quality of life (QOL) over time in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Our study included patients enrolled in Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE), a large, prospective, mostly community-based, nationwide PCa registry, who underwent RP between 2004 and 2016.

INTERVENTION

Open (ORP) versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localized PCa.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Demographic and clinicopathologic data and surgical outcomes were compared between ORP and RARP. Self-reported, validated questionnaires (scaled 0-100 with higher numbers indicating better function) were used to evaluate urinary and sexual QOL at different time points. Repeated measures mixed-models assessed changes in function and bother over time in each domain.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Among 1892 men (n = 1137 ORP; n = 755 RARP), Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score, Gleason grade at biopsy and RP, and pT-stage were lower in ORP patients (all p < 0.01). Men undergoing RARP had comparable surgical margin rates, lymph node yields, and biochemical recurrence rates. In a subset analysis with 1451 men reporting baseline and follow-up QOL data, ORP patients reported superior scores in urinary incontinence (ORP mean ± standard deviation 69 ± 26 vs RARP 62 ± 27) and bother (ORP 75±29 vs RARP 68±28, both p < 0.01) only in the 1st yr after RP. Differences in sexual outcomes did not differ between groups, nor did any QOL scores beyond 1 yr. Limitations include a decrease in the rate of questionnaire response during follow-up, potential selection biases in terms of patient assignment to ORP versus RARP and survey completion rates, and the fact that RARP cases likely included the initial learning curve for the CaPSURE surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients experienced changes in urinary and sexual QOL in the 1st 3 yr following RP. The pattern of recovery over time was similar between ORP and RARP groups. Patients should not expect different oncologic or QOL outcomes based on surgical approach.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Aside from a small, early, and temporary advantage in terms of urinary incontinence and bother favoring open surgery, minimal differences in outcomes are observed when comparing men who undergo open versus robot-assisted prostatectomy in the community setting.

[Urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction after treatment of localized prostate cancer: Results from a population aged less than 65years old]

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of patients with prostate cancer (PC) are diagnosed and treated. The aim of this study was to investigate urinary incontinence (UI) and sexual dysfunction (SD) two years after treatment for localized prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

This study followed all cases of localized PC diagnosed between 2008 and 2009 in men aged≤65years old and still alive two years after treatment. In total, 437 men were recruited. Data were collected using a standardized questionnaire and by cross-checking with data from the cancer registry. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed to evaluate persisting UI and SD at 2years.

RESULTS

At two years after treatment, UI was persistent in 48.8%; 41.2% had used urinary protections, and 39.2% had used at least 1 pad/day; 55.2% reported financial difficulties for purchasing protective pads. In total, 22.7% did not consult a specialist for UI. SD was persistent in 82.8%; 30.4% did not consult a specialist for SD. SD had a negative impact on the sex life of patients and their partners. After adjustment for cancer stage, prostatectomy was significantly associated with persisting UI and SD at two years.

CONCLUSION

Two years after treatment, rates of persisting UI and/or SD remain high. Treatment by prostatectomy was significantly associated with an increased risk of persisting adverse effects at two years. The different toxicities between treatments should be presented to patients before initiating therapy in order to encourage the patient to contributed to shared treatment decision-making.

Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up.

CONCLUSION

RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.

Work Disability After Robot-assisted or Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide, Population-based Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been associated with reduced bleeding and shorter hospital stays than open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), but it is unclear whether these differences translate into shorter absence from work.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate short- and long-term rates of work disability following RARP and RRP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study of 2571 men of working age treated with RARP or RRP between 2007 and 2009 identified in the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden. Information about physician-certified sick leave and disability pension was retrieved from the Swedish Social Insurance Agency through 2012.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We used Cox regression to calculate time to return to work (RTW, or duration of sick leave) after surgery and used generalised estimating equations to analyse days lost from work (because of sick leave and disability pension) after RTW.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Men treated with RARP returned to work after a median of 35 d, whereas the corresponding time for RRP was 48 d (p<0.001). The difference was seen early; within the first month, men treated with RARP returned to work nearly four times faster than men treated with RRP (adjusted relative RTW rate 3.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.04-4.66). During a median of 3.6 yr after return to work, men treated with RARP lost fewer days from work per person-year than men treated with RRP-12 d versus 15 d-but the association was not statistically significant (p=0.10). The adjusted rate ratio was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.82-1.42). One limitation is the nonrandomised design of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

RARP was associated with a faster RTW compared with RRP, but the surgical method did not influence long-term rates of work disability in terms of days lost from work after RTW.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We compared disease-related absence from work between two surgical methods for the removal of the prostate. Robot-assisted surgery was associated with a faster return to work compared with open surgery but did not influence absence from work in a long-term perspective.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: An update on functional and oncologic outcomes, techniques, and advancements in technology

The robotic platform has revolutionized the management of prostate cancer over the last 15 years. Several techniques have been developed to improve functional and oncologic outcomes, including meticulous apical and posterior dissection, nerve sparing techniques, bladder neck and urethral length sparing, and anastomotic reconstruction. Future developments involving novel single-site, robotic technology will undoubtedly further the field of minimally invasive urology. These topics are reviewed within this article.

The surgical learning curve for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single surgeon with 500 cases in Taiwan, China

To analyze the learning curve for cancer control from an initial 250 cases (Group I) and subsequent 250 cases (Group II) of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) performed by a single surgeon. Five hundred consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer received RALP and were evaluated. Surgical parameters and perioperative complications were compared between the groups. Positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) were assessed as cancer control outcomes. Patients in Group II had significantly more advanced prostate cancer than those in Group I (22.2% vs 14.2%, respectively, with Gleason score 8–10, P= 0.033; 12.8% vs 5.6%, respectively, with clinical stage T3, P= 0.017). The incidence of PSM in pT3 was decreased significantly from 49% in Group I to 32.6% in Group II. A meaningful trend was noted for a decreasing PSM rate with each consecutive group of 50 cases, including pT3 and high-risk patients. Neurovascular bundle (NVB) preservation was significantly influenced by the PSM in high-risk patients (84.1% in the preservation group vs 43.9% in the nonpreservation group). The 3-year, 5-year, and 7-year BCR-free survival rates were 79.2%, 75.3%, and 70.2%, respectively. In conclusion, the incidence of PSM in pT3 was decreased significantly after 250 cases. There was a trend in the surgical learning curve for decreasing PSM with each group of 50 cases. NVB preservation during RALP for the high-risk group is not suggested due to increasing PSM.

[A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre: Oncologic and functional outcomes]

OBJECTIVE

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is an oncologic and functional challenge. Few series compare prospectively the two approaches, open retropubic (ORP) and laparoscopic robot-assisted RP (LRARP). The objective was to compare the oncological and functional results of ORP and LRARP.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From January 2009 to March 2012, two practiced surgeons conducted 304 consecutive RP: respectively 129 ORP and 175 LRARP. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data (location and size of positive surgical margins [PSM]) were recorded prospectively and compared with oncological results (PSM, biochemical recurrence-free survival [BCR]) and functional outcomes (urinary and erectile) by self-validated questionnaires (USP, IIEF-15). The comparison was made by the Chi(2) test and Student t-test for qualitative and quantitative variables.

RESULTS

The preoperative data 2 groups were comparable. MCP rate was 13.2% for the ORP and 20% for the LRARP (ns) and was 1.4% and 29.6% (ORP) versus 9.4% and 36.7% (LRARP) for pT2 and pT3 for respectively (P=0.078). BCR was the same in both groups (95.2% at 13.1 months). At 12 months, the results of continence showed no difference (P=0.49) and about erectile function, the EF-score was significantly higher in LRARP: 22 versus 17 for the ORP (P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Oncological results were comparable after ORP and LRARP. The recovery of continence was excellent regardless of the surgical technique, the recovery of erectile function a bit faster by LRARP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complication rates of transperitoneal robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: single centre's experience

BACKGROUND

We report the operative details and short term oncologic and functional outcome of the first 334 Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy experiences for organ confined prostate cancer

METHODS

From August 2009 to December 2012, details of 334 consecutive patients were retrospectively analyzed. The analyzed parameters included: preoperative, per-operative characteristics, postoperative minor and major complications, positive surgical margin continence, potency, and biochemical progression at the follow-up period.

RESULTS

The classical extrafascial, interfascial, intrafascial and fascia sparing radical prostatectomy were performed in 31, 41, 200, and 62 cases, respectively. The mean operation time was 213.8±90.1minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 116.1±58.9cc during operation. A nerve-sparing procedure was performed bilaterally in 198 (59.3%) cases and unilaterally in 126 (37.7%) cases. The catheter was removed on postoperative day 9, 1±1.9. Surgical margin was positive in 36 (10.7%) patients. The overall, pT2, pT3a and pT3b PSM rates were 8 (2.4%), 12 (3.6%), 16 (4.8%) respectively and PSM and BCR rates were not statistically different among four approach (P>.05). At the follow-up period, the continence rates were 74.4%, 80.4%, 80.5%, and 96.7% (P<.001), and previously potent patients' potency rates were 64.3%, 66.6%, 68.1%, and 74.5% (P>.05), in classic extrafascial, interfascial, intrafascial, and fascia sparing intrafascial prostatectomy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

RARP is a safe and feasible technique in treatment of localized prostate cancer. Fascia sparing approach has better continence rate. This results need to be supported by new prospective, randomized studies.

Robotics in urologic oncology

Robotic surgery was initially developed to overcome problems faced during conventional laparoscopic surgeries and to perform telesurgery at distant locations. It has now established itself as the epitome of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). It is one of the most significant advances in MIS in recent years and is considered by many as a revolutionary technology, capable of influencing the future of surgery. After its introduction to urology, robotic surgery has redefined the management of urological malignancies. It promises to make difficult urological surgeries easier, safer and more acceptable to both the surgeon and the patient. Robotic surgery is slowly, but surely establishing itself in India. In this article, we provide an overview of the advantages, disadvantages, current status, and future applications of robotic surgery for urologic cancers in the context of the Indian scenario.

Oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complication rates of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: multicenter experience in Turkey including 1,499 patients

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a rising minimally invasive treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC). We present our multicenter experience of 1,499 consecutive cases with an analysis of complication rates, oncologic, and functional outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From March 2005 through December 2012, details of 1,499 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Transperitoneal approach using a da-Vinci robotic system was used to perform RARP. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative oncologic and functional outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

The mean age was 61.3 years (37-77). Mean PSA level was 8.3 ng/ml. According to D'Amico classification, the percentage of patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease cases were 65.0, 30.1, and 4.8 %, respectively. Mean operative time was 181.9 min. Mean estimated blood loss was 225.4 cc (30-1,250). Positive surgical margin (PSM) was detected in 212 (14.1 %) patients. PSM rates in pT2, pT3, and pT4 stages were 6.1, 37.1, and 100 %, respectively. The overall complication rate due to modified Clavien classification was 6.1 %. Mean follow-up time was 26.7 months. Continence, potency, and biochemical recurrence rates were 88.7, 58.2, and 2.9 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses including high-volume centers, which is the first largest series in Turkey, show that RARP is a safe procedure, has low PSM rates, high continence, and potency rates for the treatment of localized PC at experienced centers.

Dorsal penile nerve block for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy catheter related pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Purpose

Following Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) patients routinely have penile pain and urethral discomfort secondary to an indwelling urethral catheter. Our objective was to assess the effect of dorsal penile nerve block with bupivacaine on urethral catheter-related pain after RARP.

Methods

From 2012–2013, 140 patients with organ-confined prostate cancer were enrolled in an IRB approved double-blinded, randomized control trial comparing a dorsal penile nerve block of bupivacaine versus placebo after RARP performed by a single-surgeon. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires using the Wong-Bakers FACES Pain Rating scale while hospitalized and for 9 days post-operatively, until the catheter was removed. The primary end-points were: catheter-related discomfort, abdominal (incisional) pain, and bladder spasm-related discomfort. Secondary end-points included narcotic and other analgesic usage.

Results

120 patients were randomized to placebo vs. bupivacaine dorsal penile nerve bock. The two arms (n = 56 bupivacaine and n = 60 placebo) did not differ in preoperative, perioperative, or pathological results. There was no difference in narcotic utilization between the two cohorts. Abdominal pain was slightly lower in the bupivacaine arm at 6 hours compared to the placebo arm, but there was no difference in abdominal pain at other time points, and there were no differences in reported catheter-related discomfort or bladder spasm-associated discomfort at any of the measured time points.

Conclusions

The data does not support the routine use of a dorsal penile nerve block with bupivacaine following RARP.

Benchmarks for operative outcomes of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: results from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has become increasingly common; however, there have been no nationwide, population-based, non-claims-based studies to evaluate differences in outcomes between RALP and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).

OBJECTIVE

To determine surgical, oncologic, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes following RALP and RRP in a nationwide cohort.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We identified 903 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2000 and 2010 who underwent radical prostatectomy using RALP (n=282) or RRP (n=621) as primary treatment.

INTERVENTION

Radical prostatectomy.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We compared patients undergoing RALP or RRP across a range of perioperative, oncologic, and HRQOL outcomes.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Use of RALP increased during the study period, constituting 85.2% of study subjects in 2009, up from 4.5% in 2003. Patients undergoing RALP compared to RRP were less likely to have a lymph node dissection (51.5% vs 85.4%; p<0.0001), had less blood loss (207.4 ml vs 852.3 ml; p<0.0001), were less likely to receive blood transfusions (4.3% vs 30.3%; p<0.0001), and had shorter hospital stays (1.8 d vs 2.9 d; p<0.0001). Surgical, oncologic, and HRQOL outcomes did not differ significantly among the groups. In multivariate logistic regression models, there were no significant differences in 3- or 5-yr recurrence-free survival comparing RALP versus RRP (hazard ratios: 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-2.08] and 0.75 [95% CI, 0.18-3.11], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a nationwide cohort of patients undergoing surgical treatment for prostate cancer, RALP was associated with shorter hospital stay, and lower blood loss and transfusion rates than RRP. Surgical oncologic and HRQOL outcomes were similar between groups.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We studied men throughout the United States with prostate cancer who underwent surgical removal of the prostate. We found that robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy resulted in shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, and fewer blood transfusions than radical retropubic prostatectomy. There were no differences in cancer control or health-related quality of life.

Does robotic prostatectomy meet its promise in the management of prostate cancer?

Following Walsh's advances in pelvic anatomy and surgical technique to minimize intraoperative peri-prostatic trauma more than 30 years ago, open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) evolved to become the gold standard treatment of localized prostate cancer, with excellent long-term survival outcomes [1•]. However, RRP is performed with great heterogeneity, even among high volume surgeons, and subtle differences in surgical technique result in clinically significant differences in recovery of urinary and sexual function. Since the initial description of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in 2000 [2], and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval shortly thereafter, RARP has been rapidly adopted and has overtaken RRP as the most popular surgical approach in the management of prostate cancer in the United States [3]. However, the surgical management of prostate cancer remains controversial. This is confounded by the idolatry of new technologies and aggressive marketing versus conservatism in embracing tradition. Herein, we review the literature to compare RRP to RARP in terms of perioperative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes as well as healthcare costs. This is a particularly relevant, given the absence of randomized trials and long-term (more than 10-year) follow-up for RARP biochemical recurrence-free survival.

Localised prostate cancer: clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies

In contrast to pharmacological interventions that undergo rigorous clinical testing, recent technological advances in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) have particularly been introduced and driven by economic incentives rather than high-quality clinical evidence. In this review we summarise the clinical and cost-effectiveness of new and emerging technologies for localised PCa. We emphasise particularly on robotic prostatectomy, new developments in radiotherapy, novel technologies in focal therapy such as cryosurgery and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) has similar oncologic outcomes to open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP); however, patients who undergo RALRP are more likely to have improved short-term potency rates. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton-beam therapy (PBT) have similar oncologic outcomes to external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT). IMRT has exhibited an improved gastrointestinal side effect profile compared to EBRT. PBT is not cost-effective compared to other radiotherapy modalities. Early studies of focal therapies in localised PCa have yielded positive results. Treatment decisions should be driven by cancer risk and patient preference rather than by financial incentives or availability of technology.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using modular training programme in a private hospital

The aim of the study was to demonstrate an efficacious robotic fellowship model that balances safety of patients, time efficiency and adequate training, in a private hospital. Sixty-four patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using a 13-step modular training programme in a single private institute. The patients were compared with 64 consecutive patients operated on by the mentoring surgeon immediately prior to the implementation of the programme. The main parameters analysed included console time, total operating time, blood loss, positive surgical margin rate and postoperative complications. There was a marginal difference in mean console time (92.67 vs. 90.41 min; p = 0.02). Statistical difference disappeared when comparing mean total operating time (136.09 vs. 134.14 min; p = 0.16), mean blood loss (165 vs. 172 ml; p = 0.96) and margin positivity (8 vs. 13; p = 0.34). The trainee was able to complete significant numbers of modular training steps whilst maintaining momentum of the operation from the commencement of the fellowship programme. This study demonstrates that a comprehensive modular training programme in complicated robotic procedures could be implemented without compromising patient safety or time efficiency.

Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience

OBJECTIVES

To compare oncological outcomes of a consecutive retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) series performed by a single surgeon who had performed >750 prior RRPs and was starting to perform RARPs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospectively collected longitudinal data of 277 RRP and 730 RARP cases over a 5-year period were retrospectively analyzed. The RARP series were divided into 3 subgroups (1st, <250 cases; 2nd, 250-500; and 3rd, >500) according to the surgical period. The positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) rates were compared at each pathological stage.

RESULTS

The pT2 PSM rates showed no significant difference between the RRP (7.8%) and RARP series (1st, 9.5%; 2nd, 14.1%; and 3rd, 9.8%) throughout the study period (P = 0.689, 0.079, and 0.688, respectively). Although the pT3 PSM rates of the 1st (50.6%) and 2nd RARP series (50.0%) were higher than that of the RRP series (36.0%; P = 0.044 and P = 0.069, respectively), the 3rd RARP series had a comparable pT3 PSM rate (32.4%, P = 0.641). The 3-year BCRFS rates of the RRP and RARP series were similar at each pathological stage (pT2, 92.1 vs. 96.8%, P = 0.517; pT3, 60.0 vs. 67.3%, P = 0.265, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The pT2 PSM and short-term BCRFS rates were similar between RRP and RARP, and RARP showed comparable pT3 PSM rate with RRP after >500 cases of surgical experience. Our data suggest that an experienced robotic surgeon at a high-volume center may achieve comparable oncological outcomes with open prostatectomy even in locally advanced disease.