Critical appraisal of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival.Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision.Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations.Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness.We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar.Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.

Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy vs. Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP) remains the "gold standard" for surgical treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a robotic surgery used worldwide. The aim of this study is to collect the data available in the literature on RARP and ORP, and further evaluate the overall safety and efficacy of RARP vs. ORP for the treatment of clinically localized PCa. A literature search was performed using electronic databases between January 2009 and October 2013. Clinical data such as operation duration, transfusion rate, positive surgical margins (PSM), nerve sparing, 3- and 12-month urinary continence, and potency were pooled to carry out meta-analysis. Six studies were enrolled for this meta-analysis. The operation duration of RARP group was longer than that of ORP group (weighted mean difference = 64.84). There was no statistically significant difference in the transfusion rate, PSM rate, and between RARP and ORP (transfusion rate, OR = 0.30; PSM rate, OR = 0.94). No significant difference was seen in 3- and 12-month urinary continence recovery (3 months, OR = 1.32; 12 months, OR = 1.30). There was a statistically significant difference in potency between the 3- and 12-month groups (3 months, OR = 2.80; 12 months, OR = 1.70). RARP is a safe and feasible surgical technique for the treatment of clinically localized PCa owing to the advantages of fewer perioperative complications and quicker patency recovery.

Developing a multidisciplinary robotic surgery quality assessment program

The objective of this study was to test the feasibility of a novel quality-improvement (QI) program designed to incorporate multiple robotic surgical sub-specialties in one health care system. A robotic surgery quality assessment program was developed by The Ohio State University College of Medicine (OSUMC) in conjunction with The Ohio State University Medical Center Quality Improvement and Operations Department. A retrospective review of cases was performed using data interrogated from the OSUMC Information Warehouse from January 2007 through August 2009. Robotic surgery cases (n=2200) were assessed for operative times, length of stay (LOS), conversions, returns to surgery, readmissions and cancellations as potential quality indicators. An actionable and reproducible framework for the quality measurement and assessment of a multidisciplinary and interdepartmental robotic surgery program was successfully completed demonstrating areas for improvement opportunities. This report supports that standard quality indicators can be applied to multiple specialties within a health care system to develop a useful quality tracking and assessment tool in the highly specialized area of robotic surgery.

Evidence-based surgery: barriers, solutions, and the role of evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Surgery is a rapidly evolving field, making the rigorous testing of emerging innovations vital. However, most surgical research fails to employ randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and has particularly been based on low-quality study designs. Subsequently, the analysis of data through meta-analysis and evidence synthesis is particularly difficult.

METHODS

Through a systematic review of the literature, this article explores the barriers to achieving a strong evidence base in surgery and offers potential solutions to overcome the barriers.

RESULTS

Many barriers exist to evidence-based surgical research. They include enabling factors, such as funding, time, infrastructure, patient preference, ethical issues, and additionally barriers associated with specific attributes related to researchers, methodologies, or interventions. Novel evidence synthesis techniques in surgery are discussed, including graphics synthesis, treatment networks, and network meta-analyses that help overcome many of the limitations associated with existing techniques. They offer the opportunity to assess gaps and quantitatively present inconsistencies within the existing evidence of RCTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Poorly or inadequately performed RCTs and meta-analyses can give rise to incorrect results and thus fail to inform clinical practice or revise policy. The above barriers can be overcome by providing academic leadership and good organizational support to ensure that adequate personnel, resources, and funding are allocated to the researcher. Training in research methodology and data interpretation can ensure that trials are conducted correctly and evidence is adequately synthesized and disseminated. The ultimate goal of overcoming the barriers to evidence-based surgery includes the improved quality of patient care in addition to enhanced patient outcomes.

Comparison of quality of life after stereotactic body radiotherapy and surgery for early-stage prostate cancer

Background

As the long-term efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) becomes established and other prostate cancer treatment approaches are refined and improved, examination of quality of life (QOL) following prostate cancer treatment is critical in driving both patient and clinical treatment decisions. We present the first study to compare QOL after SBRT and radical prostatectomy, with QOL assessed at approximately the same times pre- and post-treatment and using the same validated QOL instrument.

Methods

Patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were treated with either radical prostatectomy (n = 123 Spanish patients) or SBRT (n = 216 American patients). QOL was assessed using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) grouped into urinary, sexual, and bowel domains. For comparison purposes, SBRT EPIC data at baseline, 3 weeks, 5, 11, 24, and 36 months were compared to surgery data at baseline, 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Differences in patient characteristics between the two groups were assessed using Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) models were constructed for each EPIC scale to account for correlation among repeated measures and used to assess the effect of treatment on QOL.

Results

The largest differences in QOL occurred in the first 1–6 months after treatment, with larger declines following surgery in urinary and sexual QOL as compared to SBRT, and a larger decline in bowel QOL following SBRT as compared to surgery. Long-term urinary and sexual QOL declines remained clinically significantly lower for surgery patients but not for SBRT patients.

Conclusions

Overall, these results may have implications for patient and physician clinical decision making which are often influenced by QOL. These differences in sexual, urinary and bowel QOL should be closely considered in selecting the right treatment, especially in evaluating the value of non-invasive treatments, such as SBRT.

Contemporary radical prostatectomy

Purpose. Patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer have more surgical treatment options than in the past. This paper focuses on the procedures' oncological or functional outcomes and perioperative morbidities of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods. A MEDLINE/PubMed search of the literature on radical prostatectomy and other new management options was performed. Results. Compared to the open procedures, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has no confirmed significant difference in most literatures besides less blood loss and blood transfusion. Nerve sparing is a safe means of preserving potency on well-selected patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Positive surgical margin rates of radical prostatectomy affect the recurrence and survival of prostate cancer. The urinary and sexual function outcomes have been vastly improved. Neoadjuvant treatment only affects the rate of positive surgical margin. Adjuvant therapy can delay and reduce the risk of recurrence and improve the survival of the high risk prostate cancer. Conclusions. For the majority of patients with organ-confined prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy remains a most effective approach. Radical perineal prostatectomy remains a viable approach for patients with morbid obesity, prior pelvic surgery, or prior pelvic radiation. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become popular among surgeons but has not yet become the firmly established standard of care. Long-term data have confirmed the efficacy of radical retropubic prostatectomy with disease control rates and cancer-specific survival rates.

Randomized controlled trial of virtual reality and hybrid simulation for robotic surgical training

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate if two commonly used laparoscopic simulators could be adapted and used successfully for the robotics platform in a laparoscopic and robotic naïve medical student population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified two widely validated laparoscopic simulation programs, LapSim(®) (Surgical Science Sweden AB), and ProMIS(®) (Haptica, Ireland)for inclusion in the study. The McGill Inanimate System for Training and Evaluation of Laparoscopic Skills(®) task set was used for ProMIS, and adapted for the DaVinci(®) console (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) robotic platform. We then randomized 20 naïve medical students to receive training on either LapSim or ProMIS, both or neither, and evaluated them before and after training.

RESULTS

When the groups were compared at baseline, there were no statistical differences in mean scores amongst the groups in univariate analysis (α= 0.05). When comparing mean scores within groups before and after training sessions, statistically significant performance enhancement in all four robotic tasks were identified in the groups receiving dual training.

CONCLUSION

We have shown that the use of ProMIS hybrid and LapSim virtual reality (VR) simulators in conjunction with each other can considerable improve robotic console performance in novice medical students compared with hybrid and VR simulation alone.