Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a new robotic surgical system: a prospective, controlled, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) gains increasing popularity in the surgical management of prostate cancer (PCa) but is challenged by its prohibitive expense. A domestic robotic system has been developed to address this issue, but data comparing the self-developed robot with the widely used robot is lacking. We performed a randomized clinical trial to compare KD-SR-01® and DaVinci® robots in terms of perioperative, short-term oncological and functional outcomes in RARP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with clinically localized PCa. Patients were randomized to undergo either KD-SR-01®-RARP (K-RARP) or DaVinci®-RARP (D-RARP) by the same surgical team. The baseline, perioperative, short-term oncologic and urinary functional data were collected and compared.

RESULTS

We enrolled 39 patients, including 20 patients undergoing K-RARP and 19 undergoing D-RARP. Demographic and tumor characteristics were comparable between groups. All surgeries were performed successfully with no conversion to open. The operative time was similar (P = 0.095) and K-RARP offered less volume of intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.001). Four patients in the K-RARP group and three in the D-RARP group developed postoperative complications (P = 0.732). Patients undergoing K-RARP had less volume of drainage (P = 0.022). Positive surgical margins were observed in three patients undergoing K-RARP and five undergoing D-RARP (P = 0.451). During the follow up, one patient receiving K-RARP group and two receiving D-RARP group had measurable prostate specific antigen (P = 0.605). Urine leakage, urinary control and pad usage were comparable between groups at six weeks post-surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The two surgical robots yielded similar results in feasibility, safety and short-term oncologic and functional efficacy for RARP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered at www.chictr.org.cn with a registration number of ChiCTR2200057000 on 25th February 2022.

Efficiency and productivity gains of robotic surgery: The case of the English National Health Service

This paper examines the effect of new medical technology (robotic surgery) on efficiency gains and productivity changes for surgical treatment in patients with prostate cancer from the perspective of a public health sector organization. In particular, we consider three interrelated surgical technologies within the English National Health System: robotic, laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are minimally invasive procedures with similar clinical benefits. While the clinical benefits in adopting robotic surgery over laparoscopic intervention are unproven, it requires a high initial investment cost and carries high on-going maintenance costs. Using data from Hospital Episode Statistics for the period 2000-2018, we observe growing volumes of prostatectomies over time, mostly driven by an increase in robotic-assisted surgeries, and further analyze whether hospital providers that adopted a robot see improved measures of throughput. We then quantify changes in total factor and labor productivity arising from the use of this technology. We examine the impact of robotic adoption on efficiency gains employing a staggered difference-in-difference estimator and find evidence of a 50% reduction in length of stay (LoS), 49% decrease in post-LoS and 44% and 46% decrease in postoperative visits after 1 year and 2 years, respectively. Productivity analysis shows the growth in radical prostatectomy volume is sustained with a relatively stable number of urology surgeons. The robotic technique increases total production at the hospital level between 21% and 26%, coupled with a 29% improvement in labor productivity. These benefits lend some, but not overwhelming support for the large-scale hospital investments in such costly technology.

Disparities in access to robotic technology and perioperative outcomes among patients treated with radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Most radical prostatectomies are completed with robotic assistance. While studies have previously evaluated perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), this study investigates disparities in access and clinical outcomes of RARP.

STUDY DESIGN

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients who received radical prostatectomy for cancer between 2010 and 2017 with outcomes through 2018. RARP was compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Odds of receiving RARP were evaluated while adjusting for covariates. Overall survival was evaluated using a propensity-score matched cohort.

RESULTS

Overall, 354 752 patients were included with 297 676 (83.9%) receiving RARP. Patients who were non-Hispanic Black (82.8%) or Hispanic (81.3%) had lower rates of RARP than non-Hispanic White (84.0%) or Asian patients (87.7%, p < 0.001). Medicaid or uninsured patients were less likely to receive RARP (75.5%) compared to patients with Medicare or private insurance (84.4%, p < 0.001). Medicaid or uninsured status was associated with decreased odds of RARP in adjusted multivariable analysis (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.76). RARP was associated with decreased perioperative mortality and improved overall survival compared to ORP.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were underinsured were less likely to receive RARP. Improved access to RARP may lead to decreased disparities in perioperative outcomes for prostate cancer.

Short-term oncological and surgical outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A retrospective multicenter cohort study in Japan (the MSUG94 group)

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated oncological outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for prostate cancer (PCa) and their perioperative complications in Japan. We investigated clinical and pathological covariates to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) after RARP.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted in RARP patients with PCa at 10 institutions in Japan. Pre- and postoperative covariates were collected from enrolled patients. The primary endpoint was defined as biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS). Additionally, the association between BCR and clinicopathological covariates was determined.

RESULTS

We enrolled 2670 patients in this study. The median follow-up period was 26.0 months. RARP-related perioperative complications were identified in 198 patients (7.4%), including 69 patients (2.6%) with grade 3/4 complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The 2-year BRFS was 88.0%. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, initial prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of ≤7.6 ng/mL, biopsy and pathological Gleason score (GS) of ≤7, clinical and pathological T1/2, and low/intermediate risks according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk classification, and negative surgical margin status had significant BRFS than their counterparts. In multivariate analysis, initial PSA, biopsy and pathological GS, clinical and pathological T stage, and surgical margin status significantly correlated with BCR after RARP.

CONCLUSION

In this study, RARP achieved a lower incidence of perioperative complications than other studies.

Impact of Pelvic Anatomical Changes Caused by Radical Prostatectomy

Simple Summary

After radical prostatectomy, the pelvic anatomy is altered such that the postoperative structure differs from the preoperative one, resulting in a variety of complications. In this review, the complications and mechanisms of pelvic anatomical changes associated with radical prostatectomy, as well as countermeasures, are outlined. An analysis of the anatomical mechanisms that cause complications after radical prostatectomy using imaging and other modalities is in progress. In addition, many surgical techniques that ensure the prevention of postoperative complications have been reported, and their usefulness has been evaluated. The preservation of as much periprostatic tissue and periprostatic structures as possible may lead to favorable postoperative functions, as long as the cancer condition permits.

Abstract

During radical prostatectomy, the prostate is removed along with the seminal vesicles, and the urinary tract is reconstructed by dropping the bladder onto the pelvic floor and suturing the bladder and urethra together. This process causes damage to the pelvic floor and postoperative complications due to the anatomical changes in the pelvic floor caused by the vesicourethral anastomosis. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction are major complications that impair patients’ quality of life after radical prostatectomy. In addition, the shortening of the penis and the increased prevalence of inguinal hernia have been reported. Since these postoperative complications subsequently affect patients’ quality of life, their reduction is a matter of great interest, and procedural innovations such as nerve-sparing techniques, Retzius space preservation, and inguinal hernia prophylaxis have been developed. It is clear that nerve sparing is useful for preserving the erectile function, and nerve sparing, urethral length preservation, and Retzius sparing are useful for urinary continence. The evaluation of pre- and postoperative imaging to observe changes in pelvic anatomy is also beginning to clarify why these techniques are useful. Changes in pelvic anatomy after radical prostatectomy are inevitable and, therefore, postoperative complications cannot be completely eliminated; however, preserving as much of the tissue and structure around the prostate as possible, to the extent that prostate cancer control is not compromised, may help reduce the prevalence of postoperative complications.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer From the Brazilian Public System Perspective

OBJECTIVES

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the gold standard for the surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer, presenting better results than radiotherapy especially for high-risk patients. Although it has clinical and technical benefits compared with open and laparoscopic techniques, the robotic-assisted RP is not publicly funded in Brazil. The objective of this study was to calculate the cost-effectiveness of the robotic-assisted RP from the Brazilian public system perspective.

METHODS

A state transition model was built to simulate the life of a patient undergoing RP. A total of 3 arms were compared: robotic-assisted, laparoscopic, and open surgeries. The assumed time horizon was 20 years; discounts were applied to both costs and health outcomes. Events and transition probabilities were obtained in the literature, and costs were obtained in official government databases. The results were reported as incremental cost-utility ratios.

RESULTS

Robotic-assisted surgery was found to be costlier but more effective than both open and laparoscopic techniques, resulting in Brazilian reals 4518 per quality-adjusted life-year and Brazilian reals 3631 per quality-adjusted life-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study gives relevant inputs for decision making regarding the inclusion of robotic-assisted RP in the Brazilian public formularies. The study demonstrates that the technology is cost-effective even when considering willingness-to-pay thresholds lower than the traditionally used ones.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the treatment of patients with clinically high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer: single surgeons functional and oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment approaches for high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer remain controversial and there are currently no standard treatments. These patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer are usually offered radiotherapy in combination with hormonal therapy. We report functional and oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and assess the role of RARP in patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer.

METHODS

This study included 188 patients with high-risk localized (clinical stage T2c or a pretreatment prostate-specific antigen level > 20 ng/mL or a biopsy Gleason score ≥ 8) and/or locally advanced (any PSA, cT3-4 or cN+) prostate cancer who underwent RARP between July 2013 and May 2020. Functional outcomes including postoperative continence and potency were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after RARP. Oncologic outcomes comprised positive surgical margins (PSMs), biochemical recurrence (BCR), BCR-free survival, and clinical recurrence (CR)-free survival rates at 1 and 3 years.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 185 (interquartile range [IQR] 130-260) minutes. Based on postoperative pathology, the rates of PSMs in the entire cohort and in those with stage pT2 disease were 26.6% and 8.5%, respectively. The continence and potency rates at 12 months were 88.3% and 56.4%, respectively. The BCR rate was 22.3%, and the median time to BCR was 10.5 (IQR 3.5-26.9) months. The 1- and 3-year BCR-free survival rates were 87.6% and 78.7%, respectively, and the 1- and 3-year CR-free survival rates were 97.5% and 90.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with clinically high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer treated with primary RARP remained BCR-free and CR-free during the 1- and 3-year follow-up, demonstrating the good functional outcomes with RARP. RARP was a safe and feasible minimally invasive surgical alternative to radiotherapy or hormonal therapy in select patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. These results should be validated to assure the reproducibility of measurements in prospective randomized-controlled studies on primary RARP.

Patterns of adoption of robotic radical prostatectomy in the United States and England

OBJECTIVES

To compare patterns of technological adoption of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy across the United States and England.

DATA SOURCES

We examine radical prostatectomy in the United States and England between 2005 and 2017, using de-identified administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse in the United States and the Hospital Episodes Statistics in England.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a longitudinal analysis of robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery for radical prostatectomy. We compared the trends of adoption over time within and across countries. Next, we explored whether differential adoption patterns in the two health systems are associated with differences in volumes and patient characteristics. Finally, we explored the relationship between these adoption patterns and length of stay, 30-day readmission, and urology follow-up visits.

DATA COLLECTION

Open, laparoscopic, and robotic radical prostatectomies are identified using Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Classification of Interventions and Procedures (OPCS) codes in England and International Classification of Diseases ninth revision (ICD9), ICD10, and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in the United States.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We identified 66,879 radical prostatectomies in England and 79,358 in the United States during 2005-2017. In both countries, open surgery dominates until 2009, where it is overtaken by minimally invasive surgery. The adoption of robotic surgery is faster in the United States. The adoption rates and, as a result, the observed centralization of volume, have been different across countries. In both countries, patients undergoing radical prostatectomies are older and have more comorbidities. Minimally invasive techniques show decreased length of stay and 30-day readmissions compared to open surgery. In the United States, robotic approaches were associated with lower length of stay and readmissions when compared to laparoscopic.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgery has become the standard approach for radical proctectomy in the United States and England, showing decreased length of stay and in 30-day readmissions compared to open surgery. Adoption rates and specialization differ across countries, likely a product of differences in cost-containment efforts.

Do People Trust in Robot-Assisted Surgery? Evidence from Europe

(1) Background: The goal of the paper was to establish the factors that influence how people feel about having a medical operation performed on them by a robot. (2) Methods: Data were obtained from a 2017 Flash Eurobarometer (number 460) of the European Commission with 27,901 citizens aged 15 years and over in the 28 countries of the European Union. Logistic regression (odds ratios, OR) to model the predictors of trust in robot-assisted surgery was calculated through motivational factors, using experience and sociodemographic independent variables. (3) Results: The results obtained indicate that, as the experience of using robots increases, the predictive coefficients related to information, attitude, and perception of robots become more negative. Furthermore, sociodemographic variables played an important predictive role. The effect of experience on trust in robots for surgical interventions was greater among men, people between 40 and 54 years old, and those with higher educational levels. (4) Conclusions: The results show that trust in robots goes beyond rational decision-making, since the final decision about whether it should be a robot that performs a complex procedure like a surgical intervention depends almost exclusively on the patient’s wishes.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health-2021 Update: Male Sexual Dysfunction

CONTEXT

The present summary of the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines is based on the latest guidelines on male sexual health published in March 2021, with a last comprehensive update in January 2021.

OBJECTIVE

To present a summary of the 2021 version of the EAU guidelines on sexual and reproductive health.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review was performed up to January 2021. The guidelines were updated, and a strength rating for each recommendation was included based on either a systematic review of the evidence or a consensus opinion from the expert panel.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Late-onset hypogonadism is a clinical condition in the ageing male combining low levels of circulating testosterone and specific symptoms associated with impaired hormone production and/or action. A comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic work-up, along with screening recommendations and contraindications, is provided. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the persistent inability to attain and maintain an erection sufficient to permit satisfactory sexual performance. Along with a detailed basic and advanced diagnostic approach, a novel decision-making algorithm for treating ED in order to better tailor therapy to individual patients is provided. The EAU guidelines have adopted the definition of premature ejaculation (PE), which has been developed by the International Society for Sexual Medicine. After the subtype of PE has been defined, patient's expectations should be discussed thoroughly and pharmacotherapy must be considered as the first-line treatment for patients with lifelong PE, whereas treating the underlying cause must be the initial goal for patients with acquired PE. Haemospermia is defined as the appearance of blood in the ejaculate. Several reasons of haemospermia have been acknowledged; the primary goal over the management work-up is to exclude malignant conditions and treat any other underlying cause.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2021 guidelines on sexual and reproductive health summarise the most recent findings, and advise in terms of diagnosis and treatment of male hypogonadism and sexual dysfunction for their use in clinical practice. These guidelines reflect the multidisciplinary nature of their management.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Updated European Association of Urology guidelines on sexual and reproductive health are presented, addressing the diagnosis and treatment of the most prevalent conditions in men. Patients must be fully informed of all relevant diagnostic and therapeutic options and, together with their treating physicians, decide on optimal personalised management strategies.

Measuring Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the most common solid organ malignancy in men. Fortunately, at the time of diagnosis, the majority of cases are staged as localized or regional disease, conferring excellent 5- and 10-year cure rates. There are several first line treatment options including surgical approaches such as robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radiation therapy (RT) available to patients with localized disease that offer similar PCa oncologic outcomes but are associated with potentially significant side effects which may impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL) domains. Recently, clinicians and investigators have sought to better understand these changes in HRQOL metrics with the utilization of patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Given that RARP represents the most common surgical treatment for PCa in the United States, there has been a particular interest in assessing these outcomes derived by patient perspectives to more fully appreciate treatment-related impact on quality of life following RARP.

OBJECTIVE

This narrative review sought to explore the instruments available to measure quality of life after RARP, a review of the PRO data after RARP, and future directions for assessing and improving quality of life outcomes following this surgery.

CLINICAL USE

There are several treatment options for men diagnosed with local and regional prostate cancer with similar oncologic outcomes but differing patterns of side effects affecting post-treatment quality of life. Understanding data reported directly by patients following RARP about their side effects and quality of life gives providers additional information for appropriate preoperative counseling for patients choosing between treatment options for their prostate cancer.

Artificial intelligence in perioperative management of major gastrointestinal surgeries

Artificial intelligence (AI) demonstrated by machines is based on reinforcement learning and revolves around the usage of algorithms. The purpose of this review was to summarize concepts, the scope, applications, and limitations in major gastrointestinal surgery. This is a narrative review of the available literature on the key capabilities of AI to help anesthesiologists, surgeons, and other physicians to understand and critically evaluate ongoing and new AI applications in perioperative management. AI uses available databases called “big data” to formulate an algorithm. Analysis of other data based on these algorithms can help in early diagnosis, accurate risk assessment, intraoperative management, automated drug delivery, predicting anesthesia and surgical complications and postoperative outcomes and can thus lead to effective perioperative management as well as to reduce the cost of treatment. Perioperative physicians, anesthesiologists, and surgeons are well-positioned to help integrate AI into modern surgical practice. We all need to partner and collaborate with data scientists to collect and analyze data across all phases of perioperative care to provide clinical scenarios and context. Careful implementation and use of AI along with real-time human interpretation will revolutionize perioperative care, and is the way forward in future perioperative management of major surgery.

Comparative effectiveness of robotic and open radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy (RP) has undergone a remarkable transformation from open to minimally-invasive surgery over the last two decades. However, it is important to recognize there is still conflicting evidence regarding key outcomes. We aimed to summarize current literature on comparative effectiveness of robotic and open RP for key outcomes including oncologic results, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures, safety and postoperative complications, and healthcare costs. The bulk of the paper will discuss and interpret limitations of current data. Finally, we will also highlight future directions of both surgical approaches and its potential impact on health care delivery.

Daily urine loss immediately after urethral catheter removal may be an effective predictor of long-term urinary incontinence following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Some patients who undergo robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) continue to experience long-term urinary incontinence (UI). This study aimed to evaluate easily obtainable factors that can predict long-term UI following RARP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 315 patients who underwent RARP for localised prostatic cancer were analysed. We separated the patients into two groups, namely, the Continence group and the Incontinence group, according to the presence or absence of UI at 12 months after surgery, and we compared the patients' characteristics and operative data to identify clinical signs associated with long-term UI. Additionally, correlations between these factors and postoperative urethral function were evaluated. Urinary continence was defined as both the use of 0 pads/per day and <2 g of urine lost using the 24-hours pad weight test.

RESULTS

Of 315 patients, 250 (79.4%) achieved urinary continence and 65 (20.6%) had long-term UI. Age, storage-related lower urinary tract symptoms before surgery, nerve-sparing surgery and the 24-hours urine loss immediately after urethral catheter removal significantly affected long-term UI after RARP. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that the 24-hours urine loss after catheter removal was a significant predictor of long-term UI. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified a urine loss of 330 g/d as the optimal cut-off value, which yielded 92% sensitivity and 84% specificity, and it showed significant correlations with postoperative urethral function and the time to recover urinary continence.

CONCLUSION

The 24-hours urine loss immediately after urethral catheter removal may be the most reliable and useful predictor of long-term UI following RARP.

Latest Comprehensive Medical Resource Consumption in Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic and Traditional Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated long-term medical monetary cost in patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest and longest follow-up study to examine medical monetary cost in patients with PC undergoing ORP, LRP, or RARP. After adjustment for confounders, the medical monetary cost in the RARP group was the least compared with that in the ORP and LRP groups.

PURPOSE

To estimate long-term medical resource consumption among patients with prostate cancer (PC) receiving open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants were men enrolled in the Taiwan Cancer Registry with localized PC diagnosis who received radical prostatectomy. After adjustment for confounders, a generalized linear mixed model was used to determine significant differences in the number of urology outpatient clinic visits required, proportion of patients being hospitalized for urinary diseases or surgical complications, and medical reimbursement for urinary diseases or surgical complications following ORP, LRP, or RARP in the first, second, and third years. Results: No differences were observed in the median number of urology outpatient clinic visits between the three types of surgical modalities up to the second year after ORP, LRP, and RARP (median: 15, 10, and seven visits, respectively; p < 0.001), but significant differences were observed in the third year. Similarly, with RARP (10.9% versus 18.7% in ORP and 9.8% in LRP; p = 0.0014), the rate of hospitalization for urinary diseases or surgical complications decreased in the third year. Medical reimbursement for urinary diseases or surgical complications reduced after RARP compared with that for ORP and LRP, with approximately 22% reduction in the first year (p = 0.0052) and 20-40% reduction in the third year (p value = 0.0024).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical resource consumption in the RARP group was less compared with those in the ORP and LRP groups.

Role of laparoscopy in the era of robotic surgery in urology in developing countries

With the rapid expansion of robotic platforms in urology, there is an urgent and unmet need to review its cost and benefits in comparison to the traditional laparoscopy, especially in reference to a developing country. A nonsystematic review of the literature was conducted to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted urologic procedures. Available literature over the past 30 years was reviewed. Robot-assisted surgery and laparoscopy were found to have similar outcomes in the areas of radical prostatectomy, partial and radical nephrectomy, radical cystectomy, retroperitoneal lymph node (LN) dissection, inguinal LN dissection, donor nephrectomy, and kidney transplantation. Robot-assisted surgery was found to be significantly costlier than pure laparoscopy. In the absence of a clear advantage of robot-assisted surgery over pure laparoscopy, lack of widespread availability and the currently prohibitive cost of robotic technology, laparoscopic urological surgery has a definite role in the developing world.

Surgeon case volume and continence recovery following radical prostatectomy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common complication following radical prostatectomy (RP). Prolonged UI has a substantial impact on quality of life and psychosocial well-being. As the RP technique is complex, it is reasonable to propose that surgeon experience could affect post-operative continence recovery outcomes. This study aimed to systematically evaluate evidence regarding a surgeon's experience and continence recovery after RP.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the literature was performed in April 2020 using the Medline, Embase, CINAHL and psychINFO electronic databases according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. All English language studies investigating UI following RP, stratified by surgeon experience, were included. Surgeon experience was defined as average annual case load or volume.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies published between 2003 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria and were included in our systematic review. Three prospective and 10 retrospective cohort studies included a total of 47 316 patients undergoing RP via open, laparoscopic or robotic-assisted procedures. Heterogeneity in the definition of surgeon experience and UI did not allow a meta-analysis. The majority of studies reported that surgeons with higher surgical volumes achieved better continence recovery rates at the early (6-week), 3-month, 6-month and later (≥12-month) time points. Most studies where a high surgical volume was defined as >50 cases/year demonstrated a significant difference in continence outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Better urinary continence recovery results can be expected by patients who undergo RP performed by a surgeon with greater experience. An annual surgical case load of >50 cases/year results in improved continence recovery outcomes following RP.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy-a Contemporary Review

Prostatectomy has been widely accepted as a treatment option for prostate cancer and can be performed via an open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach. The outcomes following prostatectomy are primarily sub-grouped into oncological and functional outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been comparable in the above three surgical modalities. However, the robotic platform seems to have a better functional outcome compared to open prostatectomy. The data on the outcome of the laparoscopic approach is scarce and is not widely performed due to technical difficulty. With experience continence outcomes have reached a plateau in many robotic series, however, the potency outcome is the real Achilles tendon of this procedure. Many factors influence potency outcomes but the amount and quality of nerve-sparing is one factor that is under a surgeon's control and it improves with experience.

Radical prostatectomy versus deferred treatment for localised prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is a common cancer but is oftentimes slow growing. When confined to the prostate, radical prostatectomy (RP), which involves removal of the prostate, offers potential cure that may come at the price of adverse events. Deferred treatment, involving observation and palliative treatment only (watchful waiting (WW)) or close monitoring and delayed local treatment with curative intent as needed in the setting of disease progression (active monitoring (AM)/surveillance (AS)) might be an alternative. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of RP compared with deferred treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (including CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE, and HTA), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and OpenGrey. Additionally, we searched two trial registries and conference abstracts of three conferences (EAU, AUA, and ASCO) until 3 March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared RP versus deferred treatment in patients with localised prostate cancer, defined as T1-2, N0, M0 prostate cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of references and extracted data from included studies. The primary outcome was time to death from any cause; secondary outcomes were: time to death from prostate cancer; time to disease progression; time to metastatic disease; quality of life, including urinary and sexual function; and adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence per outcome using the GRADE approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included four studies with 2635 participants (average age between 60 to 70 years). Three multicentre RCTs, from Europe and USA, compared RP with WW (n = 1537), and one compared RP with AM (n = 1098). Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting RP probably reduces the risk of death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.90; 3 studies with 1537 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 764 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared to 839 deaths per 1000 men in the WW group. RP probably also lowers the risk of death from prostate cancer (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.73; 2 studies with 1426 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 29 years, this corresponds to 195 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 316 deaths from prostate cancer per 1000 men in the WW group. RP may reduce the risk of progression (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.54; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence); at 19.5 years, this corresponds to 391 progressions per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 684 progressions per 1000 men for the WW group) and probably reduces the risk of developing metastatic disease (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.70; 2 studies with 1426 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence); at 29 years, this corresponds to 271 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for RP compared with 431 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for WW. General quality of life at 12 years' follow-up is probably similar for both groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.85-1.16; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 344  patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 344 patients with high quality of life per 1000 men for the WW group. Rates of urinary incontinence may be considerably higher (RR 3.97, 95% CI 2.34-6.74; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 173 incontinent men per 1000 in the RP group compared with 44 incontinent men per 1000 in the WW group, as are rates of erectile dysfunction (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.63-4.38; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to 389 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the RP group compared with 146 erectile dysfunction events per 1000 for the WW group, both at 10 years' follow-up. Radical prostatectomy versus active monitoring Based on one study including 1098 participants with 10 years' follow-up, there are probably no differences between RP and AM in time to death from any cause (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on overall mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to 101 deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 108 deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. Similarly, risk of death from prostate cancer probably is not different between the two groups (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21-1.89; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on prostate cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, this corresponds to nine prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the RP group compared with 15 prostate cancer deaths per 1000 men in the AM group. RP probably reduces the risk of progression (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27-0.56; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 86 progressions per 1000 men for RP compared with 206 progressions per 1000 men for AM) and the risk of developing metastatic disease (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73; moderate-certainty evidence; at 10 years, this corresponds to 24 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the RP group compared with 61 metastatic diseases per 1000 men for the AM group).The general quality of life during follow-up was not different between the treatment groups. However, urinary function (mean difference (MD) 8.60 points lower, 95% CI 11.2-6.0 lower) and sexual function (MD 14.9 points lower, 95% CI 18.5-11.3 lower) on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 (EPIC-26) instrument, were worse in the RP group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on long-term follow-up, RP compared with WW probably results in substantially improved oncological outcomes in men with localised prostate cancer but also markedly increases rates of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. These findings are largely based on men diagnosed before widespread PSA screening, thereby limiting generalisability. Compared to AM, based on follow-up to 10 years, RP probably has similar outcomes with regard to overall and disease-specific survival yet probably reduces the risks of disease progression and metastatic disease. Urinary function and sexual function are probably decreased for the patients treated with RP.

Preoperative Predictive Model of Narrow Pelvis in Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Through Computed Tomography

Objective: At present, prostate cancer radical surgery still lacks an objective standard for predicting the anatomic difficulty of surgery through preoperative examination. Due to the poor prognosis and surgical complications caused by "Narrow Pelvis," a pelvic model for prediction is urgently needed. The purpose of this study is to present objective preoperative assessing indicators to predict the surgical difficulty caused by pelvic anatomic abnormalities during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Methods: Patients undergoing LRP were retrospectively analyzed and separated into "Common Pelvis" or "Difficult Pelvis" groups according to the preset criteria. The clinical data and pelvic imaging data of the two groups were compared to obtain statistically significant differences. The results were compared and validated in 500 ordinary males. Logistic regression analysis was performed to optimize these indicators into a scoring model, "Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Narrow Pelvic Predictive Index (LRP-NPPI)" for predicting "Difficult Pelvis." Results: Of the 145 patients undergoing LRP, 22 (15.2%) were included in the "Difficult Pelvis" group. Patients in the "Difficult Pelvis" group were more likely to have a narrower, shorter, deeper, more flattened pelvis, greater body mass index, more history of previous pelvic surgery, and greater prostate volume. Moreover, the larger amount of intraoperative blood loss and longer operation time were related. Compared with the "Common Pelvis" group, patients in the "Difficult Pelvis" have higher score of LRP-NPPI (p < 0.05). Conclusion: With the model we proposed, it is possible to predict patients with pelvic anatomical difficulties during LRP.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: comparison of oncological outcomes at a single center

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the pathological and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed by one surgeon at a single center.

Subjects

We evaluated 700 patients with localized prostate cancer (i.e., 250 received LRP and 450 received RARP) in the study. The clinicopathological outcomes, positive surgical margin (PSM) frequency, and biochemical recurrence (BCR)–free survival were compared between LRP and RARP.

Results

At diagnosis, the median patient age and level of prostate-specific antigsen in the serum for LRP were 68 years and 8.1 ng/ml, respectively, while those for RARP were 66 years and 7.7 ng/ml, respectively. In the LRP group, the overall PSM rate was 31.2% (11.1% for pT2a, 19.0% for pT2b, 25.0% for pT2c, 60.0% for pT3a, 64.3% for pT3b, and 50% for pT4). In the RARP group, the overall PSM rate was 20.7% (4.8% for pT2a, 15.9% for pT2b, 12.9% for pT2c, 36.9% for pT3a, 46.2% for pT3b, and 100% for pT4). The PSM rate was significantly lower for RARP in men with pT2c, pT3a, or pT3b disease (p = 0.006, p = 0.009, and p = 0.027, respectively). Based on the multivariate analysis, RARP reduced the risk of BCR (hazard ratio = 0.8, p = 0.014).

Conclusions

We compared the pathological findings and rates of BCR-free survival between patients who received LRP and those who received RARP at a single center. The rate of BCR-free survival was significantly higher in men classified as D'Amico high-risk patients who received RARP versus that reported in D'Amico high-risk patients who received LRP.

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic vs open radical prostatectomy in clinically localized prostate cancer: perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes: A Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) comparing with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with clinically localized prostate cancer through all prospective comparative studies.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in August 2018 using the Pubmed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies including patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were eligible for study inclusion. Cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v. 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and 9 prospective studies were included in this systematic review. There were no significant differences between RARP/LRP and ORP in overall complication rate, major complication rate, overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, ≤pT2 tumor PSM rate, ≥pT3 tumor PSM rate. Moreover, RARP/LRP and ORP showed similarity in biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate at 3, 12, 24 months postoperatively. Urinary continence and erectile function at 12 months postoperatively between RARP and ORP are also comparable. RARP/LRP were associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss [mean difference (MD) -749.67, 95% CI -1038.52 to -460.82, P = .001], lower transfusion rate (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30, P < .001) and less hospitalization duration (MD -1.18, 95% CI -2.18 to -0.19, P = .02). And RARP/LRP required more operative time (MD 50.02, 95% CI 6.50 to 93.55, P = .02) and cost.

CONCLUSION

RARP/LRP is associated with lower blood loss, transfusion rate and less hospitalization duration. The available data were insufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of postoperative complications, functional and oncologic outcomes.

Outcomes of health-related quality of life after open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in China

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients undergoing open (ORP), laparoscopic (LRP), or robot-assisted (RARP) radical prostatectomy.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 347 men with clinically localized prostate cancer treated with ORP (n=97), LRP (n=71), or RARP (n=179) by high-volume surgeons in our institution between January 2014 and December 2016. The primary endpoint was HRQOL including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction.

Results

One year after surgery, 15.9% of men reported moderate to severe urinary incontinence (ORP 16.5%, LRP 15.4%, and RARP 15.7%), with only 4.6% using pads. There were no statistically significant differences in the ratios of no pad usage and urinary incontinence bother after 12 months postoperatively among the three groups. However, 67.7% of the men reported moderate to severe erectile dysfunction (ORP 66%, LRP 66.1%, and RARP 69.3%) 12 months after surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in the international index of erectile function-5 (IIEF-5) postoperatively among the different surgical groups. In the univariate and multivariate analyses, age at surgery, preoperative IIEF-5, and neurovascular bundle preservation were the risk factors for moderate to severe sexual bother. Interestingly, 16.1% of men with an erection hardness score of grade 3-4 were hesitant to become sexually active postoperatively.

Conclusion

ORP, LRP, and RARP have similar early HRQOL outcomes with respect to urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. In contrast to urinary continence, erectile dysfunction is still a serious concern for patients who undergo radical prostatectomy.

Functional results in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. An updated literature review

Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer in men. The initial diagnosis is made in increasingly younger patients, so it seems to be essential to guarantee optimal functional results. We carried out a systematic search to define the functional results of each of the therapeutic options for localized prostate cancer. Radical prostatectomy generates a greater negative effect on urinary continence and erectile function compared to active surveillance and radiotherapy. Robotic surgery seems to offer better functional results, especially at the level of erectile function. Urinary and bowel symptoms are more pronounced after radiotherapy compared to other options. Patients must be warned of the possible functional results prior to choice of treatment.

Neuro-anatomic basis of potency recovery after radical prostatectomy: an expert's point of view

INTRODUCTION

From 25% to 95% of those who have undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) report erectile dysfunction 12 months after surgery. We attempt a review of the available evidence regarding the anatomy of the cavernous nerves and the surgical refinements to enhance sexual function recovery after surgery.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed/Medline database was searched. Duplicates were removed. Studies were selected by the authors according to the aim of the present review.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The cavernous nerves are deemed responsible for erections, but their exact function is still a matter of debate. They do not necessarily have the same distribution in all individuals: in most the cases, these nerves are located posterolaterally, however, it is not uncommon to find some fibers on the anterolateral aspects of the prostate, especially towards the apex. Several technical strategies were proposed in order to intraoperatively identify and spare the neurovascular bundles: despite all efforts, clinical results are still only partially satisfying.

CONCLUSIONS

The recovery of potency is one of the most unpredictable outcomes after RP. The advent of the robotic surgical system seems to have brought a trend towards a faster recovery of erectile function.

Return to work following robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy: A single-center cohort study to compare duration of sick leave

PURPOSE

To compare the duration of sick leave in patients with localized prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open retropubic RP (ORP) at a German high-volume prostate cancer center.

METHODS

The data of 1,415 patients treated with RP at Martini Klinik, Prostate Cancer Center between 2012 and 2016 were, retrospectively, analyzed. Information on employment status, monthly revenues and days of work missed due to sickness were assessed via online questionnaire. Additional data were retrieved from our institutional database. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) were reported for continuous data. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to compare both surgical techniques for return to work time after RP.

RESULTS

Median time elapsed between surgery and return to work comprised 42 days in patients undergoing RARP (IQR: 21-70) and ORP (IQR: 28-84, P = 0.05). In Cox regression analysis, surgical approach showed no impact on return to work time (RARP vs. ORP hazard ratio = 1, 95% CI: 0.91-1.16, P = 0.69). Return to work time was significantly associated with employment status, physical workload and monthly income (all P<0.001). Limitation of this study is the nonrandomized design in a single-center.

CONCLUSIONS

As the surgical approach did not show any influence on the number of days missed from work in patients undergoing RP, no superiority of either RARP or ORP could be identified for return to work time in a German cohort. Both surgical approaches are safe options usually allowing the patients to resume normal activities including work after an appropriate convalescence period.

Robotic vs. Retropubic radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer: A systematic review and an meta-analysis update

CONTEXT

The safety and feasibility of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy(RRP) is debated. Recently, a number of large-scale and high-quality studies have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To obtain a more valid assessment, we update the meta-analysis of RARP compared with RRP to assessed its safety and feasibility in treatment of prostate cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared RARP with RRP. Outcomes of interest included perioperative, pathologic variables and complications.

RESULTS

78 studies assessing RARP vs. RRP were included for meta-analysis. Although patients underwent RRP have shorter operative time than RARP (WMD: 39.85 minutes; P < 0.001), patients underwent RARP have less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -507.67ml; P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR = 0.13; P < 0.001), shorter time to remove catheter (WMD = -3.04day; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -1.62day; P < 0.001), lower PSM rates (OR:0.88; P = 0.04), fewer positive lymph nodes (OR:0.45;P < 0.001), fewer overall complications (OR:0.43; P < 0.001), higher 3- and 12-mo potent recovery rate (OR:3.19;P = 0.02; OR:2.37; P = 0.005, respectively), and lower readmission rate (OR:0.70, P = 0.03). The biochemical recurrence free survival of RARP is better than RRP (OR:1.33, P = 0.04). All the other calculated results are similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that RARP appears to be safe and effective to its counterpart RRP in selected patients.

The British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) radical prostatectomy audit 2014/2015 - an update on current practice and outcomes by centre and surgeon case-volume

OBJECTIVES

To describe contemporary radical prostatectomy (RP) practice using the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) data and audit project and to observe differences in practice in relation to surgeon or centre case-volume.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data on 13 920 RP procedures performed by 179 surgeons across 86 centres were recorded on the BAUS data and audit platform between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015. This equates to ~95% of total RPs performed over this period when compared to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. Centre case-volumes were categorised as 'high' (>200), 'medium' (100-200) and 'low' (<100); surgeon case-volumes were categorised as 'high' (>100) and 'low' (<100). Differences in surgical practice and selected outcome measures were observed between groups. All data and volume categories were for the combined 2-year period.

RESULTS

The median number of RPs performed over the 2-year period was 63.5 per surgeon and 164 per centre. Overall, surgical approach was robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP) in 65%, laparoscopic RP (LRP) in 23%, and open RP (ORP) in 12%. The dominant approach in high-case-volume centres and by high-case-volume surgeons was RALP (74.3% and 69.2%, respectively). There was a greater percentage of ORPs reported by low-volume surgeons and centres when compared to higher volume equivalents. In all, 51.6% of all patients in this series underwent RP in high-case-volume centres using robot-assisted surgery (RAS). High-case-volume surgeons performed nerve-sparing (NS) procedures on 57.3% of their cases; low-volume surgeons performing NS on 48.2%. Overall, lymph node dissection (LND) rates were very similar across the groups. An 'extended' LND was more commonly performed in high-volume centres (22.1%). The median length of stay (LOS) was lowest in patients undergoing RALP at high-volume centres (1 day) and highest in ORP across all volume categories (3-4 days). Reported pT2 positive surgical margin (PSM) rate varied by technique, centre volume, and surgeon volume. In general, observed PSM rates were lower when RALP was the surgical approach (14.4%) and when high-volume surgeons were compared to low-volume surgeons (13.6% vs 17.7%). Transfusion rates were highest in ORP across all centres and surgeons (2.96-4.49%) compared to techniques using a minimally-invasive approach (0.25-2.41%). Training cases ranged from 0.5% in low-volume centres to 6.0% in high-volume centres.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance with data registration for centres and surgeons performing RP is high in the present series. Most RPs were performed in high-case-volume centres and by high-case-volume surgeons, with the most common approaches being minimally invasive and specifically RAS. High-case-volume centres and surgeons reported higher rates of extended LND and training cases. Higher-case-volume surgeons reported lower pT2 PSM rates, whilst the most marked differences in transfusion rates and LOS were seen when ORP was compared to minimally invasive approaches. Caution must be applied when interpreting these differences on the basis of this being registry data - causality cannot be assumed.

Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis

No consensus has been attained regarding the utility of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We carried out a network meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis comparing RRP, LRP and RALRP on peri-operative and functional outcome measures. Electronic databases were searched for either randomized clinical trials or cohort studies comparing RALRP either with LRP or RRP in patients with localized PCa. Outcome measures were as follows: overall, pT2 and pT3-positive surgical margins (PSMs); biochemical recurrence (BCR); complication rates; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion rate; continence and potency rates; duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Publication bias, risk of bias and inconsistency were assessed. Inverse heterogeneity model was used for analysis. A total of 45 studies were included for the final analysis. We observed that RALRP and LRP did not differ significantly from RRP with regard to the following outcomes: overall PSM; pT2 and pT3 PSMs; OT; complication rate; continence and potency rates; total blood loss and hospital stay. Duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in RALRP than LRP and RRP while significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion and BCR were observed for both RALRP and LRP in comparison with RRP. To conclude, similar functional, operative and oncologic outcomes were observed for both RALRP and LRP compared to RRP.

Anaesthetic issues in robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery

Over the past decade there has been an exponential increase in the number of robotic-assisted surgical procedures performed in Australia and internationally. Despite this growth, there are no level I or II studies examining the anaesthetic implications of these procedures. Available observational studies provide insight into the significant challenges for the anaesthetist. Most anaesthetic considerations overlap with those of non-robotic surgery. However, issues with limited patient access and extremes of positioning resulting in physiological disturbances and risk of injury are consistently demonstrated concerns specific to robotic-assisted procedures.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Importance

This review provides a comprehensive comparison of treatment outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) based on randomly-controlled trials (RCTs).

Objectives

We employed RCTs to provide a systematic review that will enable the relevant community to weigh the effectiveness and efficacy of surgical robotics in controversial fields on surgical procedures both overall and on each individual surgical procedure.

Evidence review

A search was conducted for RCTs in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 1981 to 2016. Among a total of 1,517 articles, 27 clinical reports with a mean sample size of 65 patients per report (32.7 patients who underwent RLS and 32.5 who underwent CLS), met the inclusion criteria.

Findings

CLS shows significant advantages in total operative time, net operative time, total complication rate, and operative cost (p < 0.05 in all cases), whereas the estimated blood loss was less in RLS (p < 0.05). As subgroup analyses, conversion rate on colectomy and length of hospital stay on hysterectomy statistically favors RLS (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Despite higher operative cost, RLS does not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favorable with CLS.

Prospective longitudinal outcomes of quality of life after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy

Background

There have been few reports on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in Japanese patients. The aim of this study is to assess changes in HRQOL during 36 months after LRP compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP).

Methods

The subjects were 105 consecutive patients treated with LRP between 2011 and 2012. HRQOL was evaluated using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Medical Outcome Study 8-Items Short Form Health Survey (SF-8), and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 12 and 36 months after surgery. These results were compared with data for 107 consecutive patients treated with RRP between 2005 and 2007. The comparison between LRP and RRP was examined at every time point by Mann-Whitney U-test and chi-square test. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify independent factors related to the urinary domain in EPIC.

Results

The IPSS change was similar in both groups. The LRP group had a better SF-8 mental component summary score at baseline and a better SF-8 physical component summary score at 1 month after surgery. In EPIC, urinary function and bother were worse after LRP, but improved at 12 months and did not differ significantly from those after RRP; however, these factors then worsened again at 36 months after LRP. Urinary incontinence was also worse at 36 months after LRP, compared to RRP. In patients treated with nerve-sparing surgery, urinary function and urinary incontinence were similar and good at 12 and 36 months in both groups. Bowel function and bother, and sexual function and bother were similar in both groups and showed no changes from 12 to 36 months. Age and salvage radiotherapy were independent predictors of incontinence (daily use of two or more pads) in multivariate analysis. Surgical procedure was not an independent factor for incontinence, but incontinence defined as use of one pad or more was associated with the surgical procedure.

Conclusions

Urinary function and bother at 36 months were worse after LRP than after RRP. Age, salvage radiotherapy and surgical procedure were associated with urinary incontinence after 36 months.

Unexpected hemorrhage of a rare vessel, a pubic branch of the external iliac artery, after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Case report

RATIONALE

Postoperative hemorrhage is a rare complication after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), with no case reports of bleeding from the external iliac artery in the literature.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 73-year-old man diagnosed with clinical stage 2c prostate cancer underwent LRP successfully with only approximately 200 mL of intraoperative blood loss. However, his blood pressure dropped from 135/74 to 80/49 mm Hg and his hemoglobin decreased by 66 g/L compared with the preoperative level within 5 hours.

DIAGNOSES

Active hemorrhage from a pubic branch of the external iliac artery was found by digital subtraction angiography (DSA).

INTERVENTIONS

The patient was treated with superselective intraarterial embolization.

OUTCOMES

The bleeding stopped and the patient recovered uneventfully with no further hemorrhage or other complications.

LESSONS

Although postoperative hemorrhage after LRP is exceptionally rare, it can occur not only in the internal iliac artery but also in the external iliac artery. In addition, contracted pelvis cases should be addressed with more caution by the laparoscope holder in case external iliac artery is injured.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted vs open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND 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 included all randomized or pseudo-randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). 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.

RESULTS

We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short-term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] -1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: -1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study 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 (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16-1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD -1.05, 95% CI: -1.42 to -0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD -0.78, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI: -2.19 to -1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78-48 fewer).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life 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.

The effect of cavernous nerve traction on erectile function in rats

We performed this study to evaluate the effect of cavernous nerve (CN) traction on erectile function in rats. Thirty-two 8- week-old Sprague–Dawley rats were divided into four groups: control, 1-minute CN traction, 2-minute CN traction, and 2-minute CN crush. CN traction was performed using a glass hook with a tensile force of 0.2 Newton. One month later, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and intracavernosal pressure (ICP) in response to CN stimulation were measured to assess erectile function. The penis and major pelvic ganglion (MPG) were harvested to explore the expression of neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) and neurofilament, fibrosis and apoptosis. The ICP/MAP ratio was reduced in the 2-minute CN traction group compared with the control group (P < 0.05). The ICP/MAP ratio in the CN crush group was lower than in the other three groups (P < 0.05, for each). Expression of nNOS in both MPG and dorsal penile nerve was lower in the CN traction group than in the control group, but was higher than in the CN crush group (P < 0.05). Nerve fiber number in the dorsal penile nerve was reduced by 2-minute CN traction (P < 0.05). The ratios of collagen to smooth muscle content and the apoptosis were both increased the in 2-minute CN traction group compared with the control group (P < 0.05). The findings indicate that CN traction is an effective CN injury model and the injury it caused is relatively mild compared with the CN crush model.

Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the intrafascial and interfascial nerve sparing (ITR-NS and ITE-NS) radical prostatectomy. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed. Six comparative trials were selected and embraced in this research, including one randomized controlled trial, three prospective comparative trials, and two retrospective comparative trials. With regard to perioperative parameters, no significant association of operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of catheterization, and hospital stay existed between ITR-NS and ITE-NS. With respect to the functional results, ITR-NS had advantages in terms of both continence and potency recovery compared with ITE-NS. In reference to the oncologic results, the ITR-NS showed lower overall positive surgical margin (PSM) compared with ITE-NS but pT2 PSM and biochemical recurrence free rates were similar to the two surgical types. This study demonstrates that ITR-NS has better continence at 6 mo and 36 mo and better potency recovery at 6 mo and 12 mo postoperatively, regardless of the surgical technique. The cancer control of ITR-NS was also better than that of ITE-NS. This may be explained by the fact that patients in ITE-NS group present higher risk cancer than patients in ITR-NS group.

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.

Comprehensive approach for post-prostatectomy incontinence in the era of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has enabled steady and stable surgical procedures due to both meticulous maneuvers and magnified, clear, 3-dimensional vision. Therefore, better surgical outcomes have been expected with RARP than with other surgical modalities. However, even in the RARP era, post-prostatectomy incontinence has a relatively high incidence as a bothersome complication. To overcome post-prostatectomy incontinence, it goes without saying that meticulous surgical procedures and creative surgical procedures, i.e., "Preservation", "Reconstruction", and "Reinforcement" of the anatomical structures of the pelvis, are most important. In addition, medication and appropriate pad usage might sometimes be helpful for patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence. However, patients who have 1) BMI > 26 kg/m², 2) prostate volume > 70 mL, 3) eGFR < 60 mL/min, or a 4) Charlson comorbidity index > 2 have a tendency to develop post-prostatectomy incontinence despite undergoing the same surgical procedures. It is important for patients who have a high risk for post-prostatectomy incontinence to be given information about delayed recovery of post-prostatectomy incontinence. Thus, not only the surgical procedures, but also a comprehensive approach, as mentioned above, are important for post-prostatectomy incontinence.

Bladder Neck Contracture Following Radical Retropubic versus Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) are co-standard surgical therapies for localized prostatic adenocarcinoma. These surgical modalities offer similar outcomes; however, lower rate of bladder neck contracture (BNC) is amongst the touted benefits of RALP. The differences between approaches are largely elucidated through multiple-surgeon comparisons, which can be biased by differential experience and practice patterns. We aimed to eliminate inter-surgeon bias through this single-surgeon comparison of BNC rates following RRP and RALP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all RRPs and RALPs performed by one surgeon over 4 years. We compared clinical characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

RRP patients had more advanced cancer and a higher biochemical recurrence rate. No significant differences were noted between groups in rates of anastomotic leakage, BNC, or 12-month postoperative pad-free continence.

CONCLUSION

RRP offers similar outcomes to RALP with regard to postoperative urinary extravasation, urinary continence, and BNC.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy significantly reduced biochemical recurrence compared to retro pubic radical prostatectomy

Background

The pathological and oncological outcomes of retro-pubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have not been sufficiently investigated.

Methods

Treatment-naïve patients with localized prostate cancer (PC) (n = 908; RRP, n = 490; and RARP, n = 418) were enrolled in the study. The clinicopathological outcomes, rate and localization of the positive surgical margin (PSM), localization of PSM, and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival groups were compared between RRP and RARP.

Results

The median patient age and serum PSA level (ng/mL) at diagnosis were 67 years and 7.9 ng/ml, respectively, for RRP, and 67 years and 7.6 ng/ml, respectively, for RARP. The overall PSM rate with RARP was 21%, which was 11% for pT2a, 12% for pT2b, 9.8% for pT2c, 43% for pT3a, 55% for pT3b, and 0% for pT4. The overall PSM rate with RRP was 44%, which was 12% for pT2a, 18% for pT2b, 43% for pT2c, 78% for pT3a, 50% for pT3b, and 40% for pT4. The PSM rate was significantly lower for RARP in men with pT2c and pT3a (p < 0.0001 for both). Multivariate analysis showed that RARP reduced the risk of BCR (hazard ratio; 0.6, p = 0.009).

Conclusions

RARP versus RRP is associated with an improved PSM rate and BCR. To examine the cancer-specific survival, further investigations are needed.

Long-term adverse effects after retropubic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Nationwide, population-based study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Surgery for prostate cancer is associated with adverse effects. We studied long-term risk of adverse effects after retropubic (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS

In the National Prostate Cancer Register of Sweden, men who had undergone radical prostatectomy (RP) between 2004 and 2014 were identified. Diagnoses and procedures indicating adverse postoperative effects were retrieved from the National Patient Register. Relative risk (RR) of adverse effects after RARP versus RRP was calculated in multivariable analyses adjusting for year of surgery, hospital surgical volume, T stage, Gleason grade, PSA level at diagnosis, patient age, comorbidity, and educational level.

RESULTS

A total of 11 212 men underwent RRP and 8500 RARP. Risk of anastomotic stricture was lower after RARP than RRP, RR for diagnoses 0.51 (95%CI = 0.42-0.63) and RR for procedures 0.46 (95%CI = 0.38-0.55). Risk of inguinal hernia was similar after RARP and RRP but risk of incisional hernia was higher after RARP, RR for diagnoses 1.48 (95%CI = 1.01-2.16), and RR for procedures 1.52 (95%CI = 1.02-2.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The postoperative risk profile for RARP and RRP was quite similar. However, risk of anastomotic stricture was lower and risk of incisional hernia higher after RARP.

[Prospective: How will renal, prostatic and urothelial tumours be treated in 10 years?]

Forward thinking does not seek to predict the future, to unveil it as if it were already in existence, rather, its aim is to help us to construct it. Although today's epidemiological and therapeutic situations for urogenital tumours can evolve over the next 10 years, diagnostic and therapeutic methods, as well as the treatment and implementation of innovations, are already rapidly changing. Rather than reducing our prospective thinking to the therapeutic treatment of cancer only, we will aim at proposing a global sanitary vision that includes diagnosis, therapies, prevention, routine utilisation of technomedicine, genomics and even nanomedicine. This journey into the near future of tomorrow's cancerology holds the promise of being better adapted to the evolution of the medical thinking process. Imagining the way we will be treating renal, prostatic and urothelial tumours in 10 years' time is as much an introspection into our present day treatment system as a projection into its hoped for future evolution.

The impact of nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on lower urinary tract function: Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and frequency volume charts

AIMS

To elucidate the effects of a nerve-sparing (NS) procedure on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and urinary function after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), the associations between the NS procedure and LUTS and urinary function were investigated.

METHODS

The participants in this study were 200 consecutive patients who underwent RARP. These patients were categorized into unilateral and bilateral NS groups and the non-NS group. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL) index, frequency-volume chart, uroflowmetry, 1-h pad test, and the 5-item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaire were evaluated before and after RARP.

RESULTS

The total IPSS score was significantly lower in the unilateral (P = 0.03) and bilateral NS groups (P = 0.03) than in the non-NS group after RARP. Diurnal maximum voided volume (MVV) values were significantly greater in the bilateral NS group than in the non-NS group after RARP (P = 0.002). Nocturnal frequency was significantly decreased in the unilateral NS group than in the non-NS group after RARP (3 months P = 0.01, 12 months P = 0.01). Erectile function was significantly better in both the unilateral NS group (P < 0.0001) and the bilateral NS group (P = 0.02) than in the non-NS group 12 months after RARP.

CONCLUSIONS

The NS procedure in RARP has the possibility to improve not only erectile function, but also LUTS, owing to both the increase of MVV and the decrease of nocturia. Therefore, the NS procedure is also recommended from the viewpoint of early improvement of LUTS and lower urinary tract dysfunction after RARP.