Robot-assisted or pure laparoscopic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: What is the optimal procedure for the surgical margins? A single center experience

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the first separate systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Due to the lack of sufficient evidence, it is not clear whether robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is better for prostate cancer. The authors conducted this study by separately pooling and analysing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between RARP and LRP.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in March 2022 using Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 46 articles were included, including 4 from 3 RCTs and 42 from non-randomised studies. For RCTs, meta-analysis showed that RARP and LRP were similar in blood loss, catheter indwelling time, overall complication rate, overall positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence rates, but quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies showed that RARP was associated with less blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-71.99, 95% CI -99.37 to -44.61, P <0.001], shorter catheterization duration (WMD=-1.03, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.22, P =0.010), shorter hospital stay (WMD=-0.41, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.13, P =0.004), lower transfusion rate (OR=0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.56, P <0.001), lower overall complication rate (OR=0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96, P =0.020), and lower biochemical recurrence rate (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.92, P =0.004), compared with LRP. Both meta-analysis of RCTs and quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies showed that RARP was associated with improved functional outcomes. From the results of the meta-analysis of RCTs, RARP was higher than LRP in terms of overall continence recovery [odds ratio (OR)=1.60, 95% CI 1.16-2.20, P =0.004), overall erectile function recovery (OR=4.07, 95% CI 2.51-6.60, P <0.001), continence recovery at 1 month (OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.25-3.66, P =0.005), 3 (OR=1.51, 95% CI 1.12-2.02, P =0.006), 6 (OR=2.66, 95% CI 1.31-5.40, P =0.007), and 12 months (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.36-9.13, P =0.010) postoperatively, and potency recovery at 3 (OR=4.25, 95% CI 1.67-10.82, P =0.002), 6 (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.31-9.44, P =0.010), and 12 months (OR=3.59, 95% CI 1.78-7.27, P <0.001) postoperatively, which were consistent with the quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies. When sensitivity analysis was performed, the results remained largely unchanged, but the heterogeneity among studies was greatly reduced.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that RARP can improve functional outcomes compared with LRP. Meanwhile, RARP has potential advantages in perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

Learning Curve of an Innovative "3-Port" Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single-Center Analysis from 2016 to 2019

BACKGROUND

"Three-port" laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has been applied as a substitution for the conventional 4- to 5-port LRP to treat prostate cancer (PCa) patients in our institution.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve of an innovative "3-port" LRP for PCa patients.

METHODS

206 patients who received "3-port" LRP were retrospectively reviewed between January 2016 and December 2019 at our institution. According to the different years of operations performed, all of the patients were divided into group A (No. 1-50), group B (No. 51-107), group C (No. 108-160), and group D (No. 161-206). A learning curve was depicted by analyzing the parameters of operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), hospitalization, and drainage indwelling days.

RESULTS

All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics (p > 0.05). The sloping learning curve for the surgeon showed that OT and EBL were strongly correlated with an accumulated experience when compared between group A and the other groups (p < 0.05), denoting that the surgical skill of the "3-port" LRP can be fully mastered after around 50 cases. Although no significant correlation with additional experience was observed in the hospitalization and drainage indwelling days among groups, a tendency towards less hospitalization and drainage indwelling days was still reflected.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 4-year analysis based on a single-center experience exhibits that the innovative "3-port" LRP appears to be favorable with decreasing tendency in OT and EBL with experience accumulation. In view of its advantage of perioperative parameters with an evidently improved learning curve, it should be recommended in the clinical practice!

Clinical outcomes and costs of robotic surgery in prostate cancer: a multiinstitutional study in Korea

Background

This study compared the surgical, functional, and oncologic outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in Korean men.

Methods

The study population included 864 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer in the departments of urology of five tertiary hospitals between 2010 and 2011. RALP, LRP, and RRP perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes as well as complications were assessed. Medical cost data were analyzed for 682 of 864 patients.

Results

No significant differences were found among the three groups regarding the length of stay, biochemical recurrence, complications, and metastasis. The RALP group had a significantly higher rate of pelvic lymph node dissection (64.6% vs. 35.3% or 53.3%, P value <0.0001) and bilateral nerve-sparing procedures (15.7% vs. 10.0% or 8.9%, P value <0.0001) and less blood loss (median 250 mL vs. 300 mL or 700 mL, P value <0.0001) than the LRP and RRP groups. The 12-month continence recovery rate was higher in the RALP group (92.1%) than in the LRP (86.5%) and RRP (84.4%) groups (P value <0.0001). Medical costs for RALP were approximately twofold to threefold higher than those for LRP or RRP.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that surgical and functional outcomes are better with robot-assisted surgery than with laparoscopic or open surgery in terms of estimated blood loss and urinary continence; however, no differences were found among groups in terms of biochemical recurrence and the rate of complications.

Perineural invasion status, Gleason score and number of positive cores in biopsy pathology are predictors of positive surgical margin following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

This study was designed to define possible preoperative predictors of positive surgical margin after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We retrospectively analyzed the records of 296 patients with prostate cancer diagnosed by prostate biopsy, and eventually treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The prognostic impact of age, prostate volume, preoperative prostate-specific antigen, biopsy Gleason score, maximum percentage tumor per core, number of positive cores, biopsy perineural invasion, capsule invasion on imaging, and tumor laterality on surgical margin was assessed. The overall positive surgical margin rate was 29.1%. Gleason score, number of positive cores, perineural invasion, tumor laterality in the biopsy specimen, and prostate volume significantly correlated with risk of positive surgical margin by univariate analysis (P < 0.05). Gleason score (odds ratio [OR] = 2.286, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.431–3.653, P = 0.001), perineural invasion (OR = 4.961, 95% CI = 2.656–9.270, P < 0.001), and number of positive cores (OR = 4.403, 95% CI = 1.878–10.325, P = 0.001) were independent predictors of positive surgical margin at the multivariable logistic regression analysis. Patients with perineural invasion, higher biopsy Gleason scores and/or a large number of positive cores in biopsy pathology had more possibility of capsule invasion. The positive surgical margin rate in patients with capsule invasion (49.5%) was much higher than that with localized disease (17.8%). In contrast, prostate volume showed a protective effect against positive surgical margin (OR = 0.572, 95% CI = 0.346–0.945, P = 0.029). Gleason score, perineural invasion, and number of positive cores in the biopsy specimen were preoperative independent predictors of positive surgical margin after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy while prostate volume was a protective factor against positive surgical margin.

Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases

Objective

Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly evolving and preferred to reduce surgical induced morbidity and mortality and minimize the challenges of surgical techniques. Especially radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) includes some challenges like working in a deep and narrow space and challenging ergonomics for the surgeons. Because of these issues open RPP is still performed in experienced centers. In order to reduce these difficulties, robot- assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP) is developed. In this study, we report our first clinical results for r-RPP.

Material and methods

Between November 2016 and February 2017, 15 patients underwent r-RPP in our center. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was performed for all patients to exclude locally advanced disease. The patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and locally advanced prostate cancer were not chosen for r-RPP method. The patient was positioned in the exaggerated lithotomy with 15 degrees of Trendelenburg position. After incision and dissection of subcutaneous tissue, dissection was advanced to the margin of posterior recto-urethral muscle fibers. Then a GelPOINT^® device was placed and robotic system was docked.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 60.2±7.8 years. The mean body mass index of the patients was 28.8±1.9 kg/m². Four patients had previous major abdominal surgeries. Preoperative mean prostate specific antigen value was 7.3±2.4 ng/mL. The mean prostate volume was 40.8±12.4 cc. Mean perineal dissection time was 60±10.1 minutes. Mean console time and total operation time was 95±11.3 and 167±37.4 minutes, respectively. The mean time of postoperative catheterization was 8.3±1.7 days. Early continence rate was 40% after urethral catheter removal and at 3rd month of the surgery mean continence rate was 94% for all patients.

Conclusion

We demonstrate that r-RPP is a feasible and efficient method. But still this method needs for further studies in this area.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To assess the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Existing systematic reviews were updated to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RARP. Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, Kmbase, and others, were searched through July 2014. The quality of the selected systematic reviews was assessed by using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-Amstar) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.2 (Cochrane Community) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0 (CMA; Biostat). Cochrane Q and I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity.

Results

Two systematic reviews and 16 additional studies were selected from a search performed of existing systematic reviews. These included 2 randomized controlled clinical trials and 28 nonrandomized comparative studies. The risk of complications, such as injury to organs by the Clavien-Dindo classification, was lower with RARP than with LRP (relative risk [RR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23–0.85; p=0.01). The risk of urinary incontinence was lower (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31–0.60; p<0.000001) and the potency rate was significantly higher with RARP than with LRP (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11–1.70; I²=78%; p=0.003). Regarding positive surgical margins, no significant difference in risk between the 2 groups was observed; however, the biochemical recurrence rate was lower after RARP than after LRP (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48–0.73; I²=21%; p<0.00001).

Conclusions

RARP appears to be a safe and effective technique compared with LRP with a lower complication rate, better potency, a higher continence rate, and a decreased rate of biochemical recurrence.

Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been developed with an attempt to reduce the difficulty of complex laparoscopic procedures. The goal of this study was to perform a systemic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) through all relevant comparative studies.

METHODS

A literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (including prospective and retrospective studies) comparing perioperative, functional, or oncologic outcomes of both LRP and RARP, and meta-analysis was applied using the Review Manager V5.3 software.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies were identified in the literature search, including 2 RCTs, 7 prospective studies, and 15 retrospective studies. LRP and RARP showed similarity in the operative time, catheterization duration, in-hospital stay, and overall complication rate. However, blood loss [mean difference (MD) 75.94; p = 0.03] and transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR) 2.08; p = 0.001] were lower in RARP. Moreover, RARP was associated with significantly improved outcomes for continence and potency rates to those of LRP at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate (OR 0.88; p = 0.03) was lower in LRP. However, there was no significant differences in ≤pT2 (OR 0.94; p = 0.69) and ≥pT3 (OR 0.94; p = 0.73) PSM rates between LRP and RARP. Additionally, LRP and RARP owned similar biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (OR 1.15; p = 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

RARP was associated with lower blood loss and transfusion rate and much greater functional outcomes in contrast to LRP. However, there was no conclusive evidence that RARP was advantaged in terms of perioperative (except for blood loss and transfusion rate) and oncologic outcomes.

Number of positive preoperative biopsy cores is a predictor of positive surgical margins (PSM) in small prostates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of prostate size on positive surgical margin (PSM) rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and the preoperative factors associated with PSM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 1229 men underwent RARP by a single surgeon, from 2005 to August of 2013. Excluded were patients who had transurethral resection of the prostate, neoadjuvant therapy, clinically advanced cancer, and the first 200 performed cases (to reduce the effect of learning curve). Included were 815 patients who were then divided into three prostate size groups: <31 g (group 1), 31-45 g (group 2), >45 g (group 3). Multivariate analysis determined predictors of PSM and biochemical recurrence (BCR).

RESULTS

Console time and blood loss increased with increasing prostate size. There were more high-grade tumours in group 1 (group 1 vs group 2 and group 3, 33.9% vs 25.1% and 25.6%, P = 0.003 and P = 0.005). PSM rates were higher in prostates of <45 g with preoperative PSA levels of >20 ng/dL, Gleason score ≥7, T3 tumour, and ≥3 positive biopsy cores. In group 1, preoperative stage T3 [odds ratio (OR) 3.94, P = 0.020] and ≥3 positive biopsy cores (OR 2.52, P = 0.043) were predictive of PSM, while a PSA level of >20 ng/dL predicted the occurrence of BCR (OR 5.34, P = 0.021). No preoperative factors predicted PSM or BCR for groups 2 and 3.

CONCLUSION

A preoperative biopsy with ≥3 positive cores in men with small prostates predicts PSM after RARP. In small prostates with PSM, a PSA level of >20 ng/dL is a predictor of BCR. These factors should guide the choice of therapy and indicate the need for closer postoperative follow-up.

[Prostate cancer surgical margin: review by the CCAFU (Oncology Committee of the French Association of Urology)]

OBJECTIVE

Literature showed the impact of surgical margin status on prognosis after radical prostatectomy (mostly on biochemical survival). Margin status is an easy self-evaluation of surgical practice to assess. The aim of this paper was to define what a positive surgical margin (PSM) is and how to prevent the occurrence, to precise the impact on survival and how to treat.

METHOD

A literature analysis with Pubmed has been performed to 2012, furthermore conclusions of the main congresses with selection committee and review publication have also been studied.

RESULTS

PSM is defined as "tumor cells touching the ink on the specimen edge". The most frequent reported incidence is between 15 to 20%. Margin status remains one of the major criteria to determine the need of adjuvant radiotherapy after surgery. Quality of life is not or only lightly modified by radiotherapy with the current techniques. Adjuvant radiotherapy improves biological survival but is synonymous with overtreatment in many times. Salvage radiotherapy has to be quickly performed after Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) relapse (PSA<1 ng/mL even<0.5 ng/mL).

CONCLUSION

This literature review did not allow to suggest superiority of one surgical technique over another. In the same way, the kind of dissection i.e. bladder neck or neurovascular bundle preservation does no clearly modify PSM rate. However, it seems logical to "customize" dissection according to prostate cancer characteristics (D'Amico criteria for instance) guided with multiparametric MRI. Intrafascial dissection has to be applied only to low risk. Lastly, the debate between adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy is always ongoing.