Percutaneous cystostomy drainage for early removing urethral catheter in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Improving on patients' discomfort

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.

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.

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.