One-Year Outcome Comparison of Laparoscopic, Robotic, and Robotic Intrafascial Simple Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

A systematic review of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy outcomes by prostate volume

PURPOSE

The aim of our study is to assess the differences in functional outcomes during the perioperative and postoperative period after RASP depending on BPH volume.

METHODS

We searched 2 databases: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar using the following search query: robot* AND "simple prostatectomy". The search strategy and review protocol are available at Prospero (CRD42024508071).

RESULTS

We included 25 articles published between 2008 and 2023. Preoperatively, patients with prostate size < 100 cm3 had more severe symptoms while postoperatively all of them had only mild lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). In larger BPH, two authors reported moderate LUTS after RASP: Fuschi [1] (mean IPSS 8.09 ± 2.41) and Stolzenburg [2] (mean IPSS 8 ± 2.7). Postoperative Qmax was also noticeably higher in smaller BPH (mean value range 28.5-55.5 ml/s) compared to larger BPH (mean Qmax 18-29.6 ml/s), although in both groups it was within the normal range. Postoperative post-void residual (PVR) was normal as well except in one study by Stolzenburg et al. [2]. Blood loss was comparable between the groups. The complications rate in general was low.

CONCLUSION

RASP is effective in terms of subjective and objective urination indicators, and a safe procedure for BPH. In the lack of data on implementation of RASP in small prostate volumes, this procedure can be seen as an upper size «limitless» treatment alternative. Currently, comparative data regarding prostate volume is lacking, and future trials with subgroups analysis related to BPH volume might help to address this issue.

Incidental prostate carcinoma after single-port robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: a multi-institutional report (SPARC)

BACKGROUND

Single-port robot-assisted simple prostatectomy is a minimally invasive alternative for patients with large benign prostatic hyperplasia with severe symptoms and/or failure of medical treatment. In recent literature, the rate of incidental prostate cancer after simple prostatectomy ranges from 1.8% to 13.0%. Our objective is to report the rate of incidental prostate cancer after single-port robot-assisted simple prostatectomy and to compare our findings to other approaches.

METHODS

A Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium [SPARC] multi-institutional retrospective analysis of all initial consecutive single-port robot-assisted simple prostatectomy cases performed from 2019 to 2023 by eleven surgeons from six centers. Our primary outcome was the rate of incidental prostate cancer in adenoma specimens. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data.

RESULTS

A total of 235 cases were performed successfully without conversions or additional ports. Eleven patients (4.6%) were found to have incidental prostate cancer on pathological analysis. The median percentage of tissue involved by the tumor was 5%. The overall rate of clinically significant prostate cancer was 2.1%. Most cases were Gleason Grade Group 1 (55%). Those with Grade Group ≤3 were subsequently managed with active surveillance with a median follow-up of 17 months. A patient with Gleason Grade Group 4 underwent an uncomplicated multi-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with satisfactory functional and oncological outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial multi-institutional experience with single-port robot-assisted simple prostatectomy showed an incidental prostate cancer rate of 4.6%, comparable to MP, laparoscopic, and open techniques.

Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6500 cases

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend simple prostatectomy or endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) as treatment of choice for bladder prostatic obstruction (BPO) caused by large prostate glands. We aimed to provide a wide-ranging analysis of the currently available evidence, comparing safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) versus open simple prostatectomy (OSP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), and laser EEP.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for retrospective and prospective studies comparing RASP to OSP or LSP or laser EEP (HoLEP/ThuLEP). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations were followed to design the search strategies, selection criteria, and evidence report. A meta-analysis evaluated perioperative safety and effectiveness outcomes. The weighted mean difference and risk ratio were used to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCT article assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

15 studies, including 6659 patients, were selected for meta-analysis: 13 observational studies, 1 non-randomized prospective study, and 1 randomized controlled trial. RASP was associated with statistically significant longer operative time (OT) and lower postoperative complication rate, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and transfusion rate (TR) compared to OSP. LSP showed longer LOS and lower postoperative SHIM score, with no difference in OT, EBL, and complications. Compared to laser EEP, RASP presented longer LOS and catheterization time and higher TR. ThuLEP presented shorter OT than RASP. No difference were found in functional outcomes between groups both subjectively (IPSS, QoL) and objectively (Qmax, PVR).

CONCLUSION

RASP has become a size-independent treatment for the management of BPO caused by a large prostate gland. It can duplicate the functional outcomes of OSP while offering a better safety profile. When compared to LSP, the latter still stands as a valid lower-cost option, but it requires solid laparoscopic skill sets and therefore it is unlikely to spread on larger scale. When compared to laser EEP, RASP offers a shorter learning curve, but it still suffers from longer catheterization time and LOS.

Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for prostates greater than 100 g

PURPOSE

Efforts are ongoing to treat severe benign prostatic hyperplasia as traditional endoscopic treatment options are often difficult to perform and associated with significant complications. This manuscript highlights our initial experience of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy [RASP] with minimum a year follow-up. We also compared our outcomes with published literature.

METHODS

After an Institution Review Board approval, we gathered data of 50 cases of RASP between Jan 2014 and May 2021. Patients with prostate volume > 100 cc [calculated from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] and prostate biopsy confirmed benign prostate were candidates for RASP. Patients underwent RASP via transperitoneal route either by suprapubic or trans-vesical approach. Preoperative demographics, peri-operative parameters and post-operative parameters such as hospital stay, catheter removal, urinary continence and uroflow were recorded in standard database and presented as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Patients presented with a baseline median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of 23 (inter-quartile range (IQR) 21,25) and a median PSA of 7.7 ng/ml (IQR 6.4,8.7). Median preoperative prostate volume was 167 ml (IQR, 136,198 ml). Median console time was 118 min, and median estimated blood loss was 148 ml (IQR 130, 167 ml). None of our cohort needed intraoperative transfusion, conversion to open surgery or developed any complications. Median time to Foley removal was 10 days (IQR 8,12). Significant drop in the IPSS score and improvement in Qmax was noted over the period of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

RASP is associated with considerable improvements in urinary symptoms. However, comparative studies with endoscopic treatment options of large prostatic adenomas are warranted and ideally include cost analysis of different procedures.

Impact of Surgery for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia on Sexual Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Erectile Function and Ejaculatory Function

CONTEXT

Several sexual side effects, including erectile, ejaculatory, and orgasmic dysfunction, were reported with the majority of surgical procedures for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO).

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review current evidence regarding the impact of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) surgery on sexual function.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive bibliographic search on the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was conducted in July 2021. The population, intervention, comparator, and outcome (PICO) model was used to define study eligibility. Studies were Included if they assessed patients with BPO and related lower urinary tract symptoms (P) undergoing BPH surgery (I) with or without a comparison between surgical treatments (C) evaluating the impact on sexual function (O). Retrospective and prospective primary studies were included. A pooled analysis was conducted on studies including the postoperative assessment of International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-5, Male Sexual Health Questionnaire-Ejaculatory Dysfunction (MSHQ-EjD; Function and/or Bother), or retrograde ejaculation (RE) rate (PROSPERO database ID: CRD42020177907).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 151 studies investigating 20 531 patients were included. Forty-eight randomized controlled trials evaluating 5045 individuals were eligible for the meta-analysis. In most studies (122, 80.8%), only erectile and/or ejaculatory function was evaluated. A substantial number of articles (67, 44.4%) also used nonvalidated tools to evaluate erectile and/or ejaculatory function. The pooled analysis showed no statistically significant changes in IIEF-5 score compared with baseline for the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP; weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.76 pts; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1, 1.62; p = 0.08), laser procedure (WMD 0.33 pts; 95% CI -0.1, 0.77; p = 0.13), and minimally invasive treatment (WMD -1.37 pts; 95% CI -3.19, 0.44; p = 0.14) groups. A statistically significantly higher rate of RE was found after TURP (risk ratio [RR] 13.31; 95% CI 8.37, 21.17; p < 0.00001), other electrosurgical procedures (RR 34.77; 95% CI 10.58, 127.82; p < 0.00001), and the entire laser group (RR 17.37; 95% CI 5.93, 50.81; p < 0.00001). No statistically significant increase in RE rate was described after most of the minimally invasive procedures (p > 0.05). The pooled analysis of MSHQ-EjD scores was possible only for prostatic urethral lift, showing no statistically significant difference between baseline and post-treatment MSHQ-EjD Function scores (WMD -0.80 pts; 95% CI -2.41, 0.81; p = 0.33), but postoperative MSHQ-EjD Bother scores were significantly higher (WMD 0.76 pts; 95% CI 0.22, 1.30; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Erectile function appears to be unaffected by most surgical procedures for BPO. RE is a very common adverse event of BPH surgery, although emerging minimally invasive surgical procedures could be associated with a lower risk.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Benign prostatic hyperplasia surgery can have an impact on sexual function, mainly involving ejaculatory function.

Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy versus robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials

Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) are important approaches for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), though it is still unclear which is superior. This study aimed to perform a pooled analysis to compare the safety and efficacy profiles of LSP and RASP. We systematically searched the databases of Science, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs, comparing LSP to RASP. The principal outcomes included perioperative, functional and complications variables. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of dichotomous and continuous variables. Five comparative trials involving 1928 patients were included. RASP demonstrated a shorter length of hospital stay compared to LSP (WMD 1.20 days, 95% CI 0.09, 2.32; p = 0.03). However, there was no difference between the two groups regarding operative time, estimated blood loss, catheterization time and complications. Moreover, RASP had a higher maximum flow rate (Q_max) (WMD - 2.15 mL/s, 95% CI - 3.75, - 0.55; p = 0.0009) and comparable international prostate symptom score (IPSS) and sexual health inventory (SHIM) in men with LSP. The results of this study demonstrated that RASP offered comparable efficacy and safety to LSP, while maintaining a superior perioperative and functional profile. However, treatment selection should also be based on the availability and experience of the operator.

From open simple to robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for large benign prostate hyperplasia: the time has come

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) has recently been studied as an alternative to open simple prostatectomy or endoscopic treatment options. At present, there is no defined recommendation for a robotic procedure as a standard surgical technique to treat large benign prostate hyperplasia.

METHODS

Several robotic techniques have been described since 2007. Contemporaneously, multiple endoscopic enucleation techniques have been proposed. Nevertheless, open simple prostatectomy still remains a mainstay of therapy. We aimed to evaluate the development of robotic-assisted prostatectomy for large benign prostatic obstruction, thus comparing the technical aspects and clinical outcomes with open and endoscopic enucleation.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy provides significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stay but longer operative time compared to open simple prostatectomy. Compared to endoscopic treatments, robotic approaches have a similar perioperative outcome, but cause less urethral trauma or potential bladder neck strictures. Moreover, concomitant bladder pathologies can be treated within the same setting.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy is an effective and safe technique, and can hence be considered to become the preferred first-line therapy to treat patients with obstructive large prostate glands.

Endoscopic transvesical adenomectomy of the prostate, a new minimally invasive approach for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. What has our experience taught us?

Introduction

Recent technical advances have made new minimally invasive techniques possible to treat large volume (>80 ml) benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The endoscopic transperitoneal adenomectomy of the prostate (ETAP) is a new minimally invasive technique developed in our centre. The aim of this study was to describe the safety, efficacy and to evaluate our learning curve in ETAP.

Material and methods

This was a single-centre study that enrolled eighty-eight consecutive patients with large BPH who underwent ETAP. Pre-, per- and postoperative data were prospectively collected. Statistical analysis compared the first 40 patients submitted to ETAP (Group A) with the subsequent 48 patients (Group B).

Results

There were no significant differences in the surgical procedure between groups. The median operating time was 94 (80-110) minutes and the estimated blood loss 150 (100-300) ml. There were no perioperative blood transfusions nor any conversions to open approach needed. Median hospital stay was 3 (3-5) days and catheter was removed mainly at day 9 (5-11). The median Qmax improved from 8.0 (6.2-9.9) ml/s to 15.0 (11.5-23.0) ml/s postoperatively and the median International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) score decreased from 20 (15-24) to 6 (4-11) after the procedure.

Conclusions

ETAP is a secure and feasible minimally invasive technique for treatment of large BPH. The functional outcomes of this technique are consistent and promising.

Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review

Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include Holmium Laser Enucleation Prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser VapoEnucleation Prostate (ThuVEP), and Laparoscopic (LSP) or Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP). Implementing new laser technologies is costly, and the steep learning curve of these laser techniques limit their wide range use. This promoted the use of LSP and RASP in centers with readily established laparoscopy or robotic surgery programs. The aim of this study is to review case and comparative series of RASP. We systematically reviewed published data from 2008 to 2020 on RASP and have identified 26 non-comparative and 9 comparative case series. RASP has longer operation time but less time spent in hospital and less blood loss. The outcomes of improvements in symptom score, post-voiding residual urine (PVR), postoperative PSA decline, complications, and cost are similar when compared to open and laser enucleation techniques. These outcomes position RASP as a viable MIS treatment option for patients with male LUTS needing surgical treatment for enlarged prostates. Nevertheless, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multicenter and large sample size are needed to confirm the findings of this systematic review.

Robotic Simple Prostatectomy: Why and How?

Increasingly many studies have presented robotic simple prostatectomy (RSP) as a surgical treatment option for large benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) weighing 80-100 g or more. In this review, some frequently used RSP techniques are described, along with an analysis of the literature on the efficacy and complications of RSP and differences in treatment results compared with other surgical methods. RSP has the advantage of a short learning curve for surgeons with experience in robotic surgery. Severe complications are rare in patients who undergo RSP, and RSP facilitates the simultaneous treatment of important comorbid diseases such as bladder stones and bladder diverticula. In conclusion, RSP can be recommended as a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for large BPH.

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.

RESULTS

We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.

Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy: recent advances

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) represents a minimally invasive evolution of traditional open simple prostatectomy for the surgical treatment of severe lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) because of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). Aim of the present review is to summarize the most recent evidence on this novel procedure, and to better define its current role in the surgical armamentarium for the treatment of BPE.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies demonstrated that RASP can be safely and effectively performed in centers with sufficient expertise. The procedure can duplicate its open counterpart with the advantage of lower perioperative morbidity, and ultimately faster patient recovery. Overall, the status of RASP seems to be well beyond that of an 'investigational' procedure, and guidelines should be amended accordingly.Nevertheless, it remains to be determined what the place of the RASP procedure in the surgical armamentarium for the treatment of symptomatic BPE will be. Over the most recent years, few comparative studies have been reported, allowing in part to draw some conclusions. RASP seems to be attractive when compared with open simple prostatectomy as it can offer less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. However, its advantages over transurethral enucleation techniques - such as HoLEP - remain unclear. There are some specific indications, such as the presence of concomitant bladder diverticula or stones, for example, where a robotic approach could represent an appealing solution. Ultimately, further research should look at a cost analysis to determine which technique can be more cost effective. Last, the issue of the learning curve for the different procedures for symptomatic BPE remain to be further scrutinized.

SUMMARY

RASP offers potential advantages over other available techniques for the treatment of large prostate glands. In centers, wherever a solid robotic program is already in place, this procedure is likely to be increasingly implemented.

Infectious Complications of Conventional Laparoscopic vs Robotic Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that using minimally invasive surgical techniques (conventional laparoscopy or robotic) for prostatectomy is associated with lower perioperative complication rates compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. However, differences in infectious complications between these minimally invasive approaches are not well characterized. To study this further, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of prostatectomy, comparing robotic prostatectomy (RP) with conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy (LP).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through September 2018 for studies evaluating minimally invasive prostatectomy and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled odds ratio (pOR) estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I² estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. pORs were calculated separately based on the indication for prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 14,121 patients undergoing minimally invasive prostatectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between RP and LP (pOR 0.94; 95% CI 0.50, 1.76). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing RP with LP among patients with prostate cancer (pOR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43, 1.24). We observed that infectious complications were nearly threefold higher with the robotic approach in earlier studies (published between 2007 and 2012, pOR 2.81; 95% CI 1.07, 7.39), but no significant difference was found in later studies (between 2013 and 2018, pOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.40, 1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of infectious complications associated with RP was no different than that associated with conventional LP.

Expanding the indications of robotic surgery in urology: A systematic review of the literature

Objectives

To evaluate the recent developments in robotic urological surgery, as the introduction of robotic technology has overcome many of the difficulties of pure laparoscopic surgery enabling surgeons to perform complex minimally invasive procedures with a shorter learning curve. Robot-assisted surgery (RAS) is now offered as the standard for various surgical procedures across multiple specialities.

Methods

A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed to identify studies evaluating robot-assisted simple prostatectomy, salvage radical prostatectomy, surgery for urolithiasis, distal ureteric reconstruction, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection, augmentation ileocystoplasty, and artificial urinary sphincter insertion. Article titles, abstracts, and full text manuscripts were screened to identify relevant studies, which then underwent data extraction and analysis.

Results

In all, 72 studies evaluating the above techniques were identified. Almost all studies were retrospective single-arm case series. RAS appears to be associated with reduced morbidity, less blood loss, reduced length of stay, and comparable clinical outcomes in comparison to the corresponding open procedures, whilst having a shorter operative duration and learning curve compared to the equivalent laparoscopic techniques.

Conclusion

Emerging data demonstrate that the breadth and complexity of urological procedures performed using the da Vinci® platform (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is continually expanding. There is a gaining consensus that RAS is producing promising surgical results in a wide range of procedures. A major limitation of the current literature is the sparsity of comparative trials evaluating these procedures.

Laparoscopic adenomectomy in BPH - Does it have a role today?

Symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is managed medically worldwide, but transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) is the gold standard in refractory cases. Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP), laser vaporization are other options which are widely practiced. However in larger glands which are more than 80 g, open adenomectomy is still practiced. Laparoscopic adenomectomy is a minimally invasive option in such circumstances. This article explains about different techniques in minimally invasive adenomectomy and the role for this procedure today. Laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) has a place in symptomatic, larger prostatic adenoma in the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeons when open simple prostatectomy is needed.