Delayed recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Despite the wide diffusion of minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), few studies compare the results of these techniques with the retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) approach. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost-effectiveness of RRP, LRP, and RALP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases in December 2013. A 'free-text' protocol using the term 'radical prostatectomy' was applied. A total of 16,085 records were found. The authors reviewed the records to identify comparative studies to include in the review.

RESULTS

44 comparative studies were identified. With regard to the perioperative outcome, LRP and RALP were more time-consuming than RRP, but blood loss, transfusion rates, catheterisation time, hospitalisation duration, and complication rates were the most optimal in the laparoscopic approaches. With regard to the functional and oncological results, RALP was found to have the best outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirmed the well-known perioperative advantage of minimally invasive techniques; however, available data were not sufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of functional and oncologic outcomes. On the contrary, cost comparison clearly supports RRP.

Health-related quality of life in the first year after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To assess health-related quality of life in the first year after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with that after open radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

The subjects were 105 consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy between January 2011 and June 2012. Health-related quality of life was evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score, Medical Outcome Study 8-Items Short Form Health Survey (SF-8) and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Comparisons were made with data for 107 consecutive patients treated with open radical prostatectomy between October 2005 and July 2007.

RESULTS

The International Prostate Symptom Score change was similar in each group. The laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group had a better baseline Medical Outcome Study 8-Items Short Form Health Survey mental component summary score and a better Medical Outcome Study 8-Items Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score at 1 month after surgery. In Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, obstructive/irritative symptoms did not differ between the groups, but urinary incontinence was worse until 12 months after surgery and particularly severe after 1 month in the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group. The rate of severe urinary incontinence was much higher in the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group in the early period. Urinary bother was worse in the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy group at 1 and 3 months, but did not differ between the groups thereafter. Urinary function and bother were good after nerve sparing procedures and did not differ between the groups. Bowel and sexual function and bother were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Urinary function in the first year after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is worse than that after open radical prostatectomy.

The first 1000 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the UK: evidence of multiple 'learning curves'

OBJECTIVE

To report the initial experience of one surgeon, with contemporary experience of both open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and reconstructive laparoscopy, in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in 1000 patients, and to investigate the rate of change of various outcome variables for this procedure with time.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between March 2000 and December 2007, 1000 consecutive patients with clinical stage T < or = 3aN0M0 prostate cancer underwent LRP, either supervised (17%) or performed (83%), by one surgeon. The median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 7.0 (1-50) ng/mL and median Gleason sum 6 (4-10); the clinical stage was T1 in 46.9%, T2 in 49.8% and T3 in 3.3%.

RESULTS

The median (range) operative duration was 177 (78-600) min. There was one conversion (patient 8) to open surgery. The median blood loss was 200 (10-1300) mL and four patients were transfused (0.4%). The median postoperative hospital stay was 3.0 (3-28) nights. The median catheterization time was 10.0 (0.8-120) days. There were 48 complications (4.8%) requiring surgical intervention in 33 (3.3%) patients, 58% of these as a day-case admission. The positive margin rates according to d'Amico risk groups were: low, 9.1%; intermediate, 20.3%; and high, 36.8%. The overall positive margin rate was 13.3%. The PSA level was < or =0.1 mg/L at 3 months in 99.1% of patients. At a mean follow-up of 27.7 (3-72) months, 96.1% of patients were free of biochemical recurrence. In patients with a follow-up of > or =24 months potency rates peaked in the series at 86% for all men and 94% for men aged < or =65 years, and continence rates at 98% before declining thereafter in men with a shorter follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve for operating time and blood loss was overcome within the first 100-150 cases, but complication and continence rates took 150-200 cases to reach a plateau. The longest learning curve was for potency, which did not stabilize until 700 cases. These learning curves are likely to be considerably shorter when surgeons are taught in departments with a high throughput of cases but both surgeons and patients should be aware of them. In view of these findings, the authors recommend that LRP should not be self-taught and should be learned within an immersion teaching programme. Even then, a large surgical volume is likely to be needed to maintain clinical outcomes at the highest level.

Impact of a clinical pathway in patient care following surgery on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of clinical pathway (CP) implementation in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has had on patient care and clinical evolution after discharge.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-six patients were included in 2 groups: first group was composed of patients operated since the new technique (LRP) was used until the CP was implemented (26 patients operated in 2002) and, second group, with 60 patients, followed the CP during 2004 and 2005.

RESULTS

The operative time was reduced from 377.7 to 172.3 minutes after the CP implementation. The duration of bladder catheterization decreased by more than 10 days (from 26.17 to 15.85 days) and that of thromboprophylaxis was reduced from 6.44 to 3.38 days. No difference was found in the rate of complications in the first month after surgery, nor was there any difference in the rate of occurrence of erectile dysfunction, incontinence, and biochemical recurrence during the first year after surgery.

CONCLUSION

After the implementation of the CP, there have been better results in patient care, such as reduction in the duration of catheterization and thromboprophylaxis. In comparison with other studies, we observed a clear reduction in length of stay and operative time. However, there is still room for improvement in reducing the duration of catheterization.

Head-to-head comparison of retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

As more patients are diagnosed with prostate cancer at an early stage, it is becoming increasingly important to refine the technique of surgical excision. For this purpose we have generated objective data comparing three different surgical approaches used by three experienced surgeons.

METHODS

We prospectively compared three contemporary personal series of 50 consecutive radical prostatectomy (RP) patients. The health-related quality of life was evaluated preoperatively and in months 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24.

RESULTS

Considering in turn the patients undergoing retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic RP, the median procedure time was 2 h and 27 min, 1 h and 50 min and 4 h, with a transfusion rate of 2, 0 and 8%, respectively. In the perineal group there were more wound infections. Median catheter drainage was 7, 10 and 7 days and zero, 13 and one patients needed reinsertion of a catheter. Early continence varied considerably, with 57.4, 11.4 and 6.3% of patients pad-free after 1 month, but there were no differences in social continence (zero or one pad) with 97.8, 97.8 and 91.9% after 2 years. The Litwin score for incontinence (preoperative minus postoperative) was -24, -41 and -63% after 1 month and -13, +3 and -29% after 2 years. Twenty-nine, five and 15 patients had a preoperative five-item version of International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score of > or = 17 points and a nerve-sparing procedure. After 2 years, 48.1, 0 and 0% had an IIEF-5 score of > or = 17 points without the use of phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors, but when including patients using inhibitors there were no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

A comparison of morbidity, short-term convalescence and long-term side-effects of different surgical techniques is strongly biased by both the preoperative status of patients and the skill of the surgeons. Overall, we found some differences in the short-term results (e.g. early continence) and comparable long-term results.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective Comparison of Postoperative Urinary Incontinence Rates

PURPOSE

We compared the 12-month postoperative urinary incontinence rates of open radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study included all men with clinically localized prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy (open retropubic or laparoscopic) at the University of Alberta between October 1999 and July 2002. Preoperative evaluation included a 24-hour pad test, fluid volume voiding diary and International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire. Postoperative evaluation included a 24-hour pad test at 3 and 12 months, as well as a voiding diary and International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients met the eligibility criteria and consented to participate (172 open radical retropubic prostatectomy, 67 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy). Of the patients 87% (148) treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy and 88% (57) of those treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy completed 12-month followup (p = 0.50). According to 24-hour pad testing 13% of those treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy and 17% of those treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy remained incontinent at 1 year (p = 0.26). There was no difference in 24-hour pad weight, urinary symptom score and urinary quality of life at 1 year between the open and laparoscopic groups overall, or when stratified according to 12-month continence status. The majority of subjects in both groups described mild symptoms and a general satisfaction with urinary quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on objective and subjective measures, there were no differences in urinary functional outcomes 1 year after open radical retropubic prostatectomy or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urinary incontinence was found to affect a similar proportion of patients who underwent open (13%) and laparoscopic (17%) radical prostatectomy 12 months postoperatively.

Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

PURPOSE

We compared the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy through a systematic assessment of the literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature databases were searched from 1996 to December 2004 inclusive. Studies comparing transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, extraperitoneal endoscopic radical prostatectomy or robot assisted radical prostatectomy with open radical retropubic prostatectomy or radical perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer were included. Comparisons between different laparoscopic approaches were also included.

RESULTS

We identified 30 comparative studies, of which none were randomized controlled trials. There were 21 studies comparing laparoscopic with open prostatectomy with a total of 2,301 and 1,757 patients, respectively, and 9 comparing different laparoscopic approaches with a total of 1,148 patients. In terms of safety there did not appear to be any important differences in the complication rate between laparoscopic and open approaches. However, blood loss and transfusions were lower for laparoscopic approaches. In terms of efficacy operative time was longer for laparoscopic than for open prostatectomy but length of stay and duration of catheterization were shorter. Positive margin rates and recurrence-free survival were similar. Continence and potency were not well reported but they appeared similar for the 2 approaches. There were no important differences between laparoscopic approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is emerging as an alternative to open radical prostatectomy but randomized, controlled trials considering patient relevant outcomes, such as survival, continence and potency, with sufficient followup are required to determine relative safety and efficacy.

Recovery of quality of life in year after laparoscopic or retropubic radical prostatectomy: A multi-institutional longitudinal study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the general and disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with that after retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).

METHODS

A total of 45 patients who underwent LRP alone and 121 who underwent RRP alone were prospectively enrolled in an HRQOL survey. We measured the general and disease-specific HRQOL with the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form and University of California, Los Angeles, Prostate Cancer Index, respectively. The participants were asked to complete the questionnaires before and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in the preoperative characteristics of the two groups. Repeated measures of analyses of variance revealed significantly different patterns of alteration in the several general HRQOL domains between the RRP and LRP groups. The LRP group tended to have a more delayed recovery than the RRP group in the domain of urinary function and bother. The sexual function and bother of both groups showed a substantially lower score throughout the postoperative period. When the LRP group was divided into two groups according to the surgical period, an apparent improvement in HRQOL was observed in the most recent LRP series.

CONCLUSIONS

The two approaches showed different patterns of alteration regarding general HRQOL for 1 year after surgery. The LRP group reported delayed recovery of urinary and sexual function, which seemed to affect their general HRQOL. LRP appears to be still an evolving procedure.

The Window Sign: An Aid in Laparoscopic and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

AIM

Certain steps of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic radical prostatectomy (RRP), such as identification of seminal vesicles, bladder neck and retroprostatic dissections are technically challenging specially during initial experience. We describe an important land mark -- "Window sign", which helps significantly during the procedure.

METHODS

The seminal vesicles can be dissected either through the transperitoneal, subperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach. In transperitoneal approach the vas deferens, seminal vesicles and Denonvillier's fascia are dissected posteriorly, and this plane is re-entered after division of the prostate from the posterior bladder neck, and with division of the Denonvillier's fascia. The communication between the anteriorly and posteriorly dissected planes in the retrovesical and retroprostatic space is termed "the window." Alternatively, in the RRP technique, bladder neck is divided anteriorly and posteriorly and vas deferens and seminal vesicle pulled out through this window. We have found that this window in transperitoneal, subperitoneal or extraperitoneal approach whether done during laparoscopic or robotic radical prostatectomy, allows to retract the vas deferens and seminal vesicles to elevate the prostate, facilitates control of the prostatic pedicles, helps in dissection of the prostate and assists in the identification and careful avoidance of the neurovascular bundles.

RESULTS

This window sign was identified on the basis of our experience of over 450 cases of laparoscopic and robotic anatomical radical prostatectomies. We have followed this step in all of the cases by either technique.

CONCLUSION

The "window sign" is an important aid while performing laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. This technique helps the surgeon to achieve both the anatomic and oncologic goals of the nerve sparing, during anatomic radical prostatectomy.

Minimally invasive radical prostatectomy

The development of advanced laparoscopic techniques and robot-assisted technology has resulted in several new surgical approaches for treating organ-confined prostate cancer. Outcomes with these new or minimally Invasive techniques should be assessed carefully to ensure that they are similar to or surpass patients' oncologic and functional outcomes after open radical prostatectomy. This article reviews the current published experience with minimally Invasive approaches to increase awareness about viability. Several of the larger series of patients who have undergone laparoscopic (transperitoneal and extraperitoneal) or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies are discussed and evaluated critically. Comparisons to published data on open radical prostatectomy are included for completeness. The different minimally invasive techniques are described and contrasted in regard to prostate-specific antigen progression-free survival, surgical margin status, blood loss, transfusion rates, postoperative pain, length of hospitalization, duration of urinary catheterization, potency, continence, and complications. The relative costs of each method are provided. The coexistence of multiple surgical approaches should and can challenge surgeons who perform open and minimally invasive procedures to strive for a new standard of care above and beyond what is accepted today to minimize patient morbidity while maximizing functional and oncologic outcomes.