Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: critical analysis of outcomes and learning curve

Incidence of Rectal Injury After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context

Rectal injury (RI) is a dreaded complication after radical prostatectomy (RP), increasing the risk of early postoperative complications, such as bleeding and severe infection/sepsis, and late sequelae, such as a rectourethral fistula (RUF). Considering its traditionally low incidence, uncertainty remains as to predisposing risk factors and management.

Objective

To examine the incidence of RI after RP in contemporary series and to propose a pragmatic algorithm for its management.

Evidence acquisition

A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline and Scopus databases. Studies reporting data on RI incidence were selected. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the differential incidence by age, surgical approach, salvage RP after radiation therapy, and previous benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related surgery.

Evidence synthesis

Eighty-eight, mostly retrospective noncomparative, studies were selected. The meta-analysis obtained a pooled RI incidence of 0.58% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.73) in contemporary series with significant across-study heterogeneity (I² = 100%, p < 0.00001). The highest RI incidence was found in patients undergoing open RP (1.25%; 95% CI 0.66-2.38) and laparoscopic RP (1.25%; 95% CI 0.75-2.08) followed by perineal RP (0.19%; 95% CI 0-276.95) and robotic RP (0.08%; 95% CI 0.02-0.31). Age ≥60 yr (0.56%; 95% CI 0.37-06) and salvage RP after radiation therapy (6.01%; 95% CI 3.99-9.05), but not previous BPH-related surgery (4.08%, 95% CI 0.92-18.20), were also associated with an increased RI incidence. Intraoperative versus postoperative RI detection was associated with a significantly decreased risk of severe postoperative complications (such as sepsis and bleeding) and subsequent formation of a RUF.

Conclusions

RI is a rare, but potentially devastating, complication following RP. RI incidence was higher in patients ≥60 yr of age, and in those who underwent open/laparoscopic approach or salvage RP after radiation therapy. Intraoperative RI detection and repair apparently constitute the single most critical step to significantly decrease the risk of major postoperative complications and subsequent RUF formation. Conversely, intraoperatively undetected RI can lead more often to severe infective complications and RUF, the management of which remains poorly standardised and requires complex procedures.

Patient summary

Accidental rectum tear is a rare, but potentially devastating, complication in men undergoing prostate removal for cancer. It occurs more often in patients aged 60 yr or older as well as in those who underwent prostate removal via an open/laparoscopic approach and/or prostate removal after radiation therapy for recurrent disease. Prompt identification and repair of this condition during the initial operation are the key to reduce further complications such as the formation of an abnormal opening between the rectum and the urinary tract.

Early oncological and functional outcomes following radical treatment of high-risk prostate cancer in men older than 70 years: A prospective longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Assess early oncological and functional outcomes following radical treatment of men with high-risk prostate cancer and aged more than 70 years.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 335 men with high-risk prostate cancer (prostate-specific antigen ≥20ng/ml or biopsy Gleason score 8 to 10 or≥cT2c) received radical treatment between 2007 and 2014. Men were identified from comprehensive clinical databases hosted at a tertiary cancer center in the UK. The data included basic demographics, and follow-up on functional and oncological outcomes using validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used.

RESULTS

In all, 117 patients received radical radiotherapy (RT) alone, 167 patients received neoadjuvant hormone therapy and RT, and 54 patients underwent radical prostatectomy with extended lymph node dissection. Mean age was 72.8, standard deviation (SD) = 2.1, mean follow-up of 40.9 months, SD = 25.5 months. Patients who underwent laparoscopic prostatectomy = 24 (44.4%) had positive surgical margins, and mean lymph nodes dissected were 18.7, SD = 6.7. Further, 5 men experienced postoperative complications in the form of pseudoaneurism of internal iliac branch, leg ischemia, high CO2 retention, and 2 men experienced sepsis. Incidence of biochemical recurrence was significantly lower at 16.7% in the surgery group, compared with RT 51.3% and RT and hormone therapy 30.5%, and Kaplan-Meier analysis P<0.001 over 3 years of follow-up

CONCLUSION

Radical surgery with extended lymph nodes dissection appears to have good short-term oncological and functional outcomes compared with RT with or without hormones in high-risk men older than 70 years of age. Based on these findings, treatment decisions and surgical therapy should be considered on individual basis in older men with high-risk disease.

Five-year oncological outcomes of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) for prostate cancer: results from a medium-volume UK centre

OBJECTIVE

To determine the 5-year oncological outcomes of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) from a medium-volume centre, thereby providing much needed data on outcomes from the UK.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2006 to January 2012, 575 patients underwent EERPE for localized prostate cancer, performed by a single surgeon who had completed a modular training programme. Follow-up was as per local hospital policy and data were collected in our prospective database. A retrospective review of patient demographics, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, pathological T stages, Gleason scores, surgical margin status and biochemical recurrence (BCR) data was performed. BCR was defined as PSA >0.2 μg/L.

RESULTS

The mean (range) patient age was 62 (40.3-76.5) years and the mean (range) follow-up was 30 (12-72) months. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) operating time was 135 (120-170) min and the median (IQR) blood loss was 200 (100-250) mL. Of the 575 patients, 135 (23.5%) had positive surgical margins (PSMs). The PSM rate for pT2 disease was 66/406 patients (16.3%) and for pT3 disease it was 68/168 patients (40.5%). Overall BCR-free survival at 5-years was 81.5%. Multivariate Cox analysis showed that PSMs, Gleason score, D'Amico risk category and pT stage were independent predictors of BCR-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This assessment of the oncological results of EERPE, which included the surgical learning curve, shows that the adoption of EERPE after mentored fellowship training translates into mid-term oncological outcomes in line with those of retropubic/transperitoneal laparoscopic approaches and with large-volume centres worldwide which have pioneered laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The study shows that EERPE in a medium-volume second generation laparoscopic centre (that introduced EERPE after adequate training in pioneering centres) produces results with good 5-year oncological outcomes, similar to those of other major series, for patients in the UK.

Feasibility of a novel extraperitoneal two-port laparoendoscopic approach for radical prostatectomy: an initial study

The aim of this study was to describe the surgical technique and to report the early outcomes of an original extraperitoneal two-port laparoendoscopic approach for radical prostatectomy. A total of 22 consecutive patients diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer (cT1c, cT2N0) were operated on and included in this analysis. A multichannel port with three 5-mm trocars, providing easier instrument handling, was inserted extraperitoneally through a 2.5-cm lower umbilical "U" incision. An additional 12-mm port was inserted into the left fossa to allow an adequate working angle to facilitate the most critical steps of the surgical procedures. The operation was successfully completed in all patients; one patient required an additional 5-mm port to control bleeding. The median operation time was 259 min (range 207-453 min), and the fluid loss, including urine and blood, was 946 mL (range 257-1821 mL). The median Foley catheter indwelling period was 6 days (range 3-11 days) after surgery. No intraoperative complications occurred. Judging from this initial trial, this procedure can be safely carried out if the surgeon is familiar with conventional five-port laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Evolution of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and outcome

Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) is a well-established and standardized technique for treating patients with localized prostate cancer. Nevertheless, the procedure is continuously being refined with the expansion of anatomical knowledge. The development of a nerve-sparing approach and improvements in currently used equipment are expected to yield better results in cosmesis and convalescence without sacrificing the procedure's established benefits in terms of potency, continence and oncological management. In this study, the technique and its evolution are presented in detail, along with an analysis of its clinical efficacy. We also consult the literature to compare EERPE to transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and we also discuss new technical advancements regarding the use of robotic assistance during EERPE.

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic removal of magnetic foreign bodies from urinary bladder: An option for endoscopic retrieval failure

A rare case of metallic magnetic foreign bodies (51 magnetic haematite gemstone roundel beads) in the urinary bladder removed using extraperitoneal endoscopic technique is presented. Whilst magnetic nature posed difficulties in endoscopic retrieval, an alternate successful technique of extraperitoneal endoscopic approach in an emergency setting was adopted instead with good outcomes.

Surgical margin status among men with organ-confined (pT2) prostate cancer: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

: Following prostate cancer surgery, positive surgical margin (PSM) status varies among institutions and there is evidence that high-volume surgeons and centres obtain better oncological results. However, larger studies recording PSM for radical prostatectomy (RP) are from large "centres of excellence" and not population-based. Cancer Care Ontario undertook an audit of pathology reports to determine the province-wide PSM rate for pathological stage T2 (pT2) disease prostate cancer and to assess the overall and regional-based PSM rates based on surgical volume to understand gaps in quality of care prior to undertaking quality improvement initiatives.

METHODS

: Data were extracted as part of the Pathology Project Audit data output (2005, 2006). Pathology reports were submitted to Cancer Care Ontario by Ontario hospitals electronically via the Pathology Information Management System. An experienced cancer pathology coder extracted the PSM data from eligible RP cancer specimen pathology reports. Only reports that provided a pathological stage were included in the analysis. Biopsy and transurethral resection of the prostate reports were excluded. A convenience sample of 1346 reports from 2006 and 728 from 2005 were analyzed. Regression analysis was performed to assess volume-margin associations.

RESULTS

: The median province-wide surgical PSM rate for pT2 disease was 33%, ranging 0-100% among 43 hospitals where RP volumes ranged 12-625. There was no significant correlation (p > 0.05) between volume and PSM by logistic regression with variable odds ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) for PSM by quartile (1(st) = 1.66 [0.93-2.96]; 2(nd) = 0.97 [0.58-1.62]; 3(rd) = 1.44[0.91-2.29]) compared to the highest volume last quartile. Mean PSM rates between community and teaching hospitals were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

: The province-wide PSM rate for pT2 disease prostate cancer undergoing RP is higher than those published from "centres of excellence." Results from larger volume centres were not statistically significantly better, which contradicts previously published data. Factors, such as individual surgeon, patient selection, pathological processing and interpretation, may explain the differences.