Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with previous prostate surgery and radiotherapy

Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men after trans-urethral resection of the prostate: a matched-pair analysis

Prior history of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) can complicate Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Very few studies analyse the outcomes of RARP in men with a prior history of TURP. We analysed the oncological and functional outcomes of RARP in post-TURP men from our prospectively maintained database. We included the RARP data from January 2016 to January 2022. Thirty men who had RARP with a prior history of TURP were identified (Group 2). They were matched using R software and propensity score matching to 90 men with no previous TURP (Group-1). The groups were matched for age, body mass index (BMI), Gleason score, stage, PSA and D'Amico risk category in a 1:3 ratio. The two-year oncological and functional outcomes were compared. Overall, the study found no significant difference between the groups in the preoperative parameters, such as BMI, age, Gleason grade, clinical stage, PSA, prostate volume, and D'amico risk grouping. There was no difference in the estimated blood loss. The TURP group had a lower chance of having a nerve spare (p = 0.03). The median console time was longer in the TURP group (140 min (120,180) versus 168 (129,190) p = 0.058). The postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo 3a 2% versus 6.7%) and hospital stay (median of 2 days), positive surgical margins, continence, and biochemical recurrence rates at 3, 12, and 24 months were not statistically different between the groups. In high-volume centres, the oncological and continence outcomes of RARP post-TURP are not inferior to that of men without prior TURP.

Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy previous transurethral resection of prostate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative trials

The influence of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on patients who have previously undergone transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) versus TURP-naive patients is still debatable. The present study aimed to compare perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes of RARP between TURP and Non-TURP groups. We systematically searched the databases such as Science, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant studies published in English up to August 2022. Review Manager was used to compare various parameters. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022378126). Eight comparative trials with a total of 4186 participants were conducted. The TURP group had a longer operative time (WMD 22.22 min, 95% CI 8.48, 35.95; p = 0.002), a longer catheterization time (WMD 1.32 day, 95% CI 0.37, 2.26; p = 0.006), a higher estimated blood loss (WMD 23.86 mL, 95% CI 2.81, 44.90; p = 0.03), and higher bladder neck reconstruction rate (OR 8.02, 95% CI 3.07, 20.93; p < 0.0001). Moreover, the positive surgical margin (PSM) was higher in the TURP group (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.12, 1.98 p = 0.007). However, there was no difference between the two groups regarding the length of hospital stay, transfusion rates, nerve-sparing status, complication rates, long-term continence, potency rates and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Performing RARP on patients who have previously undergone TURP is a safe procedure. Furthermore, the current findings demonstrated that the TURP group had comparable oncologic and long-term functional outcomes to the Non-TURP group.

Impact of previous transurethral resection of prostate on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a matched cohort analysis

We aimed to compare surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in prostate cancer patients with and without prior history of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), using a matched cohort analysis. In an IRB-approved protocol, all patients who underwent RARP at our institution between April 2005 and July 2018 with at least 1-year follow-up were included. Among these, patients who had undergone a previous TURP (Group A) were compared with those without TURP (Group B) using the Survival, Continence, and Potency outcomes reporting system. Using propensity score matching for age, PSA and Gleason score, the two cohorts were further subdivided in a 1:2 ratio into Group C (prior TURP from Group A) and Group D (without prior TURP from Group B). Similar comparisons were made between Group C and D. Patients in Group A (n = 40) had lower PSA (p = 0.031) and were more likely to have Gleason grade 1 disease (p = 0.035) than patients in Group B (n = 143). In the propensity-matched group analysis, patients of Group C (n = 38) had higher operative time and blood loss than Group D (n = 76) patients. Group C patients also had lower continence at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. However, oncological and potency outcomes were similar in both the groups. We concluded that previous TURP is a predictor for surgical and continence outcomes following RARP. Even though these patients have a potentially lower stage or grade of disease, they are less likely to achieve social continence than men who have not had a previous TURP. This information would be important in counseling them for treatment options.

Does prior transurethral resection of prostate affect the functional and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy? A matched-pair analysis

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is challenging in men with prior history of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Few studies analyze this peculiar group of patients, and hence we sought to investigate the outcome of RARP in post-TURP men. We interrogated our prospectively maintained database containing 643 patients who underwent RARP from January 2012 to December 2020. We matched 36 men with prior history of TURP consecutively to 72 men without prior TURP. The groups were matched for age, body mass index (BMI), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), serum PSA, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade groups and clinical stage. Men with prior history of stricture surgeries, pelvic radiation, ablative laser procedures, Urolift and Rezum were excluded from the study. Fisher's Exact test/Chi-square was used for the comparison of categorical variables. Mann-Whitney test (Independent group/Unpaired data) and Wilcoxon sign rank test (for paired data) were employed to analyze continuous variables. The complication rates, median day of drain removal and length of hospital stay were similar between the groups. The TURP group required bladder neck reconstruction twice as often as the non-TURP group (58.3% versus 29.1%, p = 0.0035) and a longer duration of postoperative catheterization (10 versus 8 days, p = 0.0005). The rate of positive surgical margins was higher in the TURP group (30.5% versus 25%, p = 0.5414), albeit statistically insignificant. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) at one year (48.8% versus 60%, p = 0.0644) and zero pad/one safety-pad continence rates at one, three, six and twelve months were also not significantly different (14.3%, 35.4%, 59.2%, 81.6% for non TURP group versus 9.1%, 28.6%, 53.6%, 76.0% for TURP group). On multivariate analysis, prior TURP was not associated with a higher risk of BCR, margin positivity or incontinence. The oncological and functional outcomes of RARP post-TURP are comparable to men without prior TURP.

Functional and oncological outcomes of salvage transoral robotic surgery: a comparative study

PURPOSE

Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) as a first-line therapy has been well-documented but evidence is missing regarding salvage therapy. The aim of this study is to compare the oncological and functional outcomes of TORS as a primary and salvage therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective monocentric study included 74 patients operated by a single surgeon and sorted out into two groups: primary treatment (PT) or Salvage treatment (ST) in case of previous history of radiation therapy. Patients were further stratified by tumour location: larynx and pharynx (lST vs lPT and pST vs pPT).

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were included in PT group (64.9%) and 26 in ST group (35.1%). ST patients had more frequent cTis/T1 tumours (57.7% vs 29.2%, p = 0.0164) and no clinical lymph disease (3.8% vs 37.5%, p = 0.0016). Tracheostomy was more often performed in the ST group (57.7% vs 16.7%, p = 0.0003) and the lST subgroup (88.9% vs 9.1%, p < 0.0001). Gastric feeding tube placement was more frequent in the ST group (76.9% vs 33.3%, p = 0.0003), the pST subgroup (64.7% vs 15.4%, p = 0.0009) and the lST subgroup (100% vs 54.5%, p = 0.0297). We observed a trend for more postoperative complications in the ST group (69.2% vs 47.9%, p = 0.0783). The overall survival was lower in the ST group (p = 0.0004), and in the pST subgroup (p < 0.0001). The disease-free survival rate was lower in the ST group (p = 0.0001), the pST subgroup (p = 0.0002) and the lST subgroup (p = 0.0328).

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that survival and functional outcomes after salvage TORS are worse than in first line surgery.

Robotic prostatectomy after abandoned open radical prostatectomy—Technical aspects and outcomes

Objective

To describe the technical aspects and outcomes of robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) following abandoned open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Patients and Methods

A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent RARP following abandonment of ORP between 2016 and 2020. RARP was undertaken by two highly experienced robotic surgeons. Analysis of patient and operative characteristics, outcomes, and reasons for abandonment of ORP were described.

Results

Six patients were included for analysis with a median age of 63.5 years [50.3‐67.5]. The median body mass index (BMI) was 34.7 [27.8‐36.2]. All patients had intermediate‐risk prostate cancer. Small prostate and deep pelvis were given as reasons for abandoning ORP in five cases (83.3%), with four of these also attributing increased BMI as a factor. Extensive mesh from previous bilateral inguinal hernia repair was cited as the reason for abandonment in the remaining patient. One patient had commenced androgen deprivation therapy following abandoned ORP. Extensive retropubic adhesions were noted at the time of RARP in five of six patients, with intraoperative complication of small bladder lacerations encountered in the patient with prior mesh hernia repair. The median time from abandoned ORP to RARP was 128 days [40‐216]. Median operating time was 160 minutes [139‐190] and estimated blood loss was 225 mL [138‐375]. Negative margins were obtained in four of six cases, with further salvage treatment being required in one case at a median follow‐up duration of 10.5 months [6.5‐25.3].

Conclusion

Abandonment of ORP is an uncommonly reported event, however, in this small case series, we demonstrate that, in the hands of experienced surgeons, RARP is a safe and technically feasible alternative in such cases. Increased BMI, small prostate size and pelvic anatomical constraints appear to be common catalysts for abandonment of open surgery in this cohort. Identifying these high‐risk patients early and considering referral to robotic centers may be preferred.

Diminished long-term recovery of peak flow rate (PFR) after robotic prostatectomy in men with baseline PFR <10 mL/s and incidental association with high-risk prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on uroflowmetry (UF) parameters among men with baseline peak flow rates (PFR) <10 mL/s.

METHODS

A single-surgeon RARP database of 1082 men who underwent prospective UF testing was analyzed. Men filled out International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaires and underwent uroflowmetry and post-void bladder ultrasound before surgery and at each follow-up visit. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on preoperative PFR: those with PFR <10 mL/s (n = 158) and those with PFR ≥10 mL/s (n = 924). Univariate and multivariate regression models tested the association of preoperative characteristics in predicting postoperative PFR improvement. Within the PFR <10 mL/s group, preoperative variables were analyzed to predict pathologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Three months after RARP, men with baseline PFR <10 mL/s had a 3-fold improvement in PFR (from mean of 7.0 to 24.2 mL/s), whereas in men with PFR ≥10 mL/s there was a 50% improvement (from mean of 19.7 to 28.9 mL/s; P < .001). Improvement in PFR remained stable for >5 years, but mean postoperative PFR was 20% lower in men with baseline PFR <10 mL/s. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen (odds ratio [OR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.95) and PFR (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.34-0.80) were independent predictors of the percentage improvement in men with baseline PFR <10 mL/s. Preoperative PFR ≤7 mL/s was an independent predictor of Gleason score ≥8 (P = .016), seminal vesicle invasion (P = .010), and lymph node invasion (0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

After RARP, PFR improved significantly, with the improvement persisting over long-term follow-up. However, men with baseline PFR <10 mL/s had a 20% lower postoperative PFR over 5 years, suggesting permanent damage to the bladder and the need for early treatment to maintain bladder health. There appears to be an association between baseline PFR ≤7 mL/s and adverse pathologic features.