Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether the routine placement of a pelvic drain after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a necessity. The aim of this study was to investigate this through a meta-analysis of RCTs and non-randomized studies.

METHODS

A search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science, up to 9 March 2023, for clinical trials comparing no drain with pelvic drain placement for patients with prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. A random-effect model was assumed for all analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and, for non-randomized studies, the ROBINS-I tool was used (where ROBINS-I stands for Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions). This meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42023406429).

RESULTS

A total of six studies with 1480 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both the meta-analysis of RCTs and the meta-analysis of non-randomized studies showed that patients without drains had a similar estimated blood loss (mean difference 40.49 ml, 95% c.i. -59.75 to 140.74 ml, P = 0.430, and mean difference -14.20 ml, 95% c.i. -32.26 to 3.87 ml, P = 0.120 respectively), overall complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.35 to 1.04, P = 0.070, and OR 0.90, 95% c.i. 0.59 to 1.39, P = 0.640 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complication rate (OR 0.62, 95% c.i. 0.34 to 1.13, P = 0.120, and OR 0.83, 95% c.i. 0.28 to 2.51, P = 0.750 respectively), Clavien-Dindo grade III-V complication rate (OR 0.60, 95% c.i. 0.10 to 3.69, P = 0.590, and OR 0.92, 95% c.i. 0.25 to 3.39, P = 0.900 respectively), and duration of hospital stay (mean difference -0.08 days, 95% c.i. -0.45 to 0.29 days, P = 0.670, and mean difference -0.64 days, 95% c.i. -2.67 to 1.39 days, P = 0.540 respectively) compared with routinely drained patients. Meta-analysis of non-randomized studies revealed that the duration of operation for patients without drains was shorter than that for patients with drains (mean difference -34.88 min, 95% c.i. -43.58 to -26.18 min, P < 0.001), but the meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that there was no significant difference between the two groups (mean difference -7.64 min, 95% c.i. -15.61 to 0.32 min, P = 0.060).

CONCLUSION

The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients without drains were not inferior to those of patients with drains. In selected patients, pelvic drains can be omitted after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Role of pelvic drain and timing of urethral catheter removal following RARP: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical value of routine pelvic drain (PD) placement and early removal of urethral catheter (UC) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), as perioperative management such as the necessity of PD or optimal timing for UC removal remains highly variable.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched for articles published before March 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they investigated the differential rate of postoperative complications between patients with/without routine PD placement and with/without early UC removal, defined as UC removal at 2-4 days after RARP.

RESULTS

Overall, eight studies comprising 5112 patients were eligible for the analysis of PD placement, and six studies comprising 2598 patients were eligible for the analysis of UC removal. There were no differences in the rate of any complications (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.00), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III; pooled OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54-1.69), all and/or symptomatic lymphocele (pooled OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50-1.33; and pooled OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26-1.29, respectively) between patients with or without routine PD placement. Furthermore, avoiding PD placement decreased the rate of postoperative ileus (pooled OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.91). Early removal of UC resulted in an increased likelihood of urinary retention (OR 6.21, 95% CI 3.54-10.9) in retrospective, but not in prospective studies. There were no differences in anastomosis leakage and early continence rates between patients with or those without early removal of UC.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no benefit for routine PD placement after standard RARP in the published articles. Early removal of UC seems possible with the caveat of the increased risk of urinary retention, while the effect on medium-term continence is still unclear. These data may help guide the standardisation of postoperative procedures by avoiding unnecessary interventions, thereby reducing potential complications and associated costs.

The EUPEMEN (EUropean PErioperative MEdical Networking) Protocol for Bowel Obstruction: Recommendations for Perioperative Care

Mechanical bowel obstruction is a common symptom for admission to emergency services, diagnosed annually in more than 300,000 patients in the States, from whom 51% will undergo emergency laparotomy. This condition is associated with serious morbidity and mortality, but it also causes a high financial burden due to long hospital stay. The EUPEMEN project aims to incorporate the expertise and clinical experience of national clinical specialists into development of perioperative rehabilitation protocols. Providing special recommendations for all aspects of patient perioperative care and the participation of diverse specialists, the EUPEMEN protocol for bowel obstruction, as presented in the current paper, aims to provide faster postoperative recovery and reduce length of hospital stay, postoperative morbidity and mortality rate.

Urine leak after robotic radical prostatectomy: not all urine leaks come from the anastomosis

Radical prostatectomy is the gold standard in patients that are surgical candidates with localized prostate cancer. While most postoperative urine leaks are from vesico-urethral anastomosis, urologists must be aware that a small percentage of patients may have a urine leak from other sites that may have been inadvertently injured during the procedure. We propose a systematic workup to evaluate the source of the urinary leak as well as appropriate management of such injuries. The mid-ureter can be injured during lymph node dissection. The distal ureter is at risk of injury when performing the Montsouris approach. The posterior bladder neck dissection can at times be challenging. If not careful, one can easily cause an injury to the trigone and/or ureteral orifices. The most common site of leak is at the vesico-urethral anastomosis due to a non-watertight closure. The management of intraoperatively detected ureteral injuries require placement of a ureteral stent. The location, severity and type of injury determine the reconstruction required to fix it. Postoperatively urine leak can be frequently detected when assessing the pelvic drain, and imaging such as CT Urogram with a cystogram phase may be helpful in the diagnosis. Urine leak after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy remains a rare complication, sometimes the diagnosis can be challenging, and management varies depending on the site and severity of injury.

Pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy without routine drainage does not increase postoperative morbidity

Purpose

We aimed to define the feasibility of the omission of routine insertion of a drain after pure laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (PLDN). We compared the outcomes between those with and without routine drain insertion.

Materials and Methods

From July 2014 to October 2018, 178 PLDN were consecutively performed by a single surgeon. Since October 2016, we stopped routine insertion of a drain after PLDN. Thus, the former 80 drained routinely were defined as the Drainage group and the latter 98 were defined as the Non-drainage group. One patient drained non-routinely in the Non-drainage group was excluded from the final analysis. Operative and convalescence parameters and intra- and postoperative complications were compared between the groups. Intra- and postoperative complications within 90 days of surgery were graded using the Satava and Clavien–Dindo classifications, respectively.

Results

Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, except for concomitant surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and preoperative glomerular filtration rate. All operative and convalescence parameters were similar between the groups, except for postoperative glomerular filtration rate. The rates of overall intra- (22.5% versus 28.9%, p=0.337) and postoperative (62.5% versus 59.8%, p=0.713) complications were similar between the groups. The rates of potentially drain-related postoperative complications were also similar between the groups (36.3% versus 33.0%, p=0.650). Two patients per group suffered from major drain-related complications (2.5% versus 2.1%).

Conclusions

PLDN without routine drainage can be performed safely without an increase in postoperative morbidity.

A prospective comparative study of routine versus deferred pelvic drain placement after radical prostatectomy: impact on complications and opioid use

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association of post-RP drain placement with post-operative complications and opioid use at a high-volume institution.

METHODS

A prospective, comparative cohort study of patients undergoing robot-assisted or open RP was conducted. Patients for two surgeons did not routinely receive pelvic drains ("No Drain" arm), while the remainder routinely placed drains ("Drain" arm). Outcomes were evaluated at 30 days including Clavien-Dindo complications and opioid use. Intention-to-treat primary analysis and additional secondary analyses were performed using appropriate statistical tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 498 total patients, 144 (28.9%) were in the No Drain arm (all robot-assisted) and 354 (71.1%) in the Drain arm. In the No Drain arm, 19 (13.2%) intraoperatively were chosen to receive drains. There was no difference in overall or major (Clavien ≥ 3) complications between groups (p = 0.2 and 0.4, respectively). Drain deferral did not predict complications on multivariable analysis adjusted for age, BMI, comorbidities, clinical risk, surgical approach, operating time, lymphadenectomy, and number of nodes removed [OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34-1.11, p = 0.10]; nor did it predict symptomatic fluid collection, adjusting for lymphadenectomy and nodes removed [OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.43-3.60, p = 0.8]. Drain deferral did not decrease opioid use (p = 0.5). Per protocol analysis and restriction to robot-assisted cases demonstrated similar results.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in adverse events, complications, symptomatic collections, or opioid use with deferral of routine drain placement after RP. Experienced surgeons may safely defer drain placement in the majority of robot-assisted RP cases.

Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?

Objective

To assess the necessity of routine prophylactic drain tube use following robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Method

We performed a literature review using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction of language from January 1900 to January 2020. The following terms we used in the literature search: prostatectomy, radical prostatectomy, robot assisted, drainage, and drain tube.

Results

We identified six studies that examined the use of routine prophylactic drain tubes following RARP. One of these studies was a randomized study that included 189 patients, with 97 in the pelvic drain (PD) arm and 92 in the no pelvic drain (ND) arm. This non‐inferiority showed an early (90‐day) complication rate of 17.4% in the ND arm versus 26.8% in the PD arm (P < .001). Another non‐inferiority randomized control trial (RCT) showed a complication rate of 28.9% in the PD group versus 20.4% in the ND group (P = .254). Similarly, the other studies found no benefit of routine use of prophylactic drain tube after RARP.

Conclusion

Drain tubes play a role during robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy, however, following a review of the current available literature, they can be safely omitted and we suggest that clinicians may be selective in their use.

Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery or fast track surgery pathways in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and fast track surgery (FTS) protocols have been applied to a variety of surgeries and have been proven to reduce complications, accelerate rehabilitation, and reduce medical costs. However, the effectiveness of these protocols in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (miRP) is still unclear. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of ERAS and FTS protocols in miRP.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases to collect randomized and observational studies comparing ERAS/FTS versus conventional care in miRP up to July 1, 2019. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment by two independent reviewers, the meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan 5.3 and STATA 15.1 software. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

In total, 11 studies involving 1,207 patients were included. Pooled data showed that ERAS/FTS was associated with a significant reduction in length of stay (LOS) (WMD: -2.41 days, 95% CI: -4.00 to -0.82 days, P=0.003), time to first anus exhaust (WMD: -0.74 days, 95% CI: -1.14 to -0.34 days, P=0.0003), and lower incidence of postoperative complications (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92, P=0.01). No significant differences were found between groups for operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain, blood transfusion rate, and readmission rate (P>0.01).

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis suggests that the ERAS/FTS protocol is safe and effective in miRP. However, more extensive, long-term, prospective, multicenter follow-up studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are required to validate our findings.

Surgical Strategies for Lymphocele Prevention in Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy and Lymph Node Dissection: A Systematic Review

Purpose: Pelvic lymph node dissection is an important step during robotic radical prostatectomy. The collection of lymphatic fluid (lymphocele) is the most common complication with potentially severe impact; therefore, different strategies have been proposed to reduce its incidence. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and NIH Registry of Clinical Trials were searched for articles including the following interventions: transperitoneal vs extraperitoneal approach, any reconfiguration of the peritoneum, the use of pelvic drains, and the use of different sealing techniques and sealing agents. The outcome evaluated was the incidence of symptomatic lymphocele. Randomized, nonrandomized, and/or retrospective studies were included. Results: Twelve studies were included (including one ongoing randomized clinical trial). Because of heterogeneity of included studies, no meta-analysis was performed. No significant impact was reported by different sealing techniques and agents or by surgical approach. Three retrospective, nonrandomized studies showed a potential benefit of peritoneal reconfiguration to maximize the peritoneal surface of reabsorption. Conclusion: Lymphocele formation is a multistep and multifactorial event; high-quality literature analyzing risk factors and preventive measures is rather scarce. Peritoneal reconfiguration could represent a reasonable option that deserves further evaluation; no other preventive measure is supported by current evidence.

Prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement in major uro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on radical prostatectomy, cystectomy and partial nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To systematically analyze the impact of prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement or omission in uro-oncologic surgery.

METHODS

This systematic review follows the Cochrane recommendations and was conducted in line with the PRISMA and the AMSTAR-II criteria. A comprehensive database search including Medline, Web-of-Science, and CENTRAL was performed based on the PICO criteria. All review steps were done by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

The search identified 3427 studies of which eleven were eligible for qualitative and ten for quantitative analysis reporting on 3664 patients. Six studies addressed radical prostatectomy (RP), four studies partial nephrectomy (PN) and one study radical cystectomy. For RP a reduction in postoperative complications was found without drainage (odds ratio (OR)[95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.62[0.44;0.87], p = 0.006), while there were no differences for re-intervention (OR[CI]: 0.72[0.39;1.33], p = 0.300), lymphocele OR[CI]: 0.60[0.22;1.60], p = 0.310), hematoma (OR[CI]: 0.68[0.18;2.53], p = 0.570) or urinary retention (OR[CI]: 0.57[0.26;1.29], p = 0.180). For partial nephrectomy no differences were found for overall complications (OR[CI]: 0.99[0.65;1.51], p = 0.960) or re-intervention (OR[CI]: 1.16[0.31;4.38], p = 0.820). For RC, there were no differences for all parameters. The overall-quality of evidence was assessed as low.

CONCLUSION

The omission of drains can be recommended for standardized RP and PN cases. However, deviations from the standard can still mandate the placement of a drain and remains surgeon preference. For RC, there is little evidence to recommend the omission of drains and future research should focus on this issue.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER (PROSPERO)

CRD42019122885.

Regular vs. selective use of closed suction drains following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a regional quality improvement collaborative

BACKGROUND

Closed suction drain (CSD) placement is common in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Our goal is to quantify outcomes of RARP for patients undergoing RARP by surgeons who regularly or selectively use CSDs.

METHODS

Patients undergoing RARP (4/2014-7/2017) were prospectively entered into the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS) >2 days, >16-day catheterization, 30-day readmission, and clinically significant urine leak or ileus. Retrospective analysis of each adverse event was performed comparing groups using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

In all, 6746 RARPs were performed by 115 MUSIC surgeons. CSDs were used in 4451 RARP (66.0%), with wide variation in surgeon CSD use (median: 94.7%, range: 0-100%, IQR: 45-100%). The cohorts of patients treated by surgeons with regular vs. selective CSD usage were similar. CSD use pattern was not associated with rates of prolonged catheterization (4.6% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.17) or readmission (4.5% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.35) and multivariable analysis confirmed these findings (each p > 0.10). Regular CSD use was associated with LOS >2 days (8.4% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.001) and multivariable analyses indicated an odds ratio (OR) of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.12-1.79; p = 0.017) and increased likelihood of clinically significant ileus (OR: 1.64; CI: 1.14-2.35; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are specific situations in which CSDs are beneficial, e.g. anastomotic leak or observed lymphatic drainage, regular CSD use during RARP was associated with a greater likelihood of LOS >2 days and clinically significant ileus. Our data suggest that CSD should be placed selectively rather than routinely after RARP.

A Clinician's Guide to Avoiding and Managing Common Complications During and After Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

CONTEXT

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is on the advance globally, and it is essential for surgeons and patients to know the rates of perioperative complications.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based clinical guidance on avoiding and managing common complications during and after RARP in the context of a comprehensive literature review.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

In concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis 2015 statement guidelines, a literature search of the PubMed database from August 1, 2011, to August 31, 2015, using the predefined search terms robot* AND radical prostatectomy, was conducted. The search resulted in 653 unique results that were subsequently uploaded to DistillerSR (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada) for team-based screening and processing of references.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 37 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Median rate of overall complication was 12.6% (range: 3.1-42%). Most of the complications were minor (Clavien-Dindo grades 1 and 2). Grade 3 complications comprised the bulk of the major complications with a median rate of 2.7%; grade IV and V complications were exceedingly rare in all reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite continued adoption of the RARP technique globally, rates of overall complication remain low. Many of the complications experienced during and after RARP can be mitigated and prevented by experience and the implementation of safe techniques.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Despite continued adoption of the robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) technique globally, rates of overall and major complications remain low at 12.6% and 2.7%, respectively. Complications can be minimized and successfully managed using established techniques. RARP is a safe and reproducible technique.