Retropubic, Laparoscopic, and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Analysis of the Surgical Outcomes in a Single Regional Center

Prevalence and influencing factors of social alienation among elderly patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer

Objectives

This study aims to not only investigate the prevalence of social alienation among elderly patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer but also identify the contributing factors.

Materials and methods

A total of 245 elderly patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and undergoing radical prostatectomy at a tertiary care general hospital in Jinan were included in this study. To assess the patients, several questionnaires were used. These included the General Situation Questionnaire, General Alienation Scale, Social Impact Scale, Modified Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer, and Perceived Social Support Scale. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between variables, whereas multiple linear regression was used to identify the factors influencing social alienation among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy.

Results

Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy had a mean total score of 44.13 ± 7.24 on the Social Alienation Scale. The results of the Pearson correlation analysis indicated that social alienation showed an inverse association with social support (r = -0.627, p < 0.05) and positive associations with age, disease stigma, and anxiety (r = 0.325, 0.575, 0.421, all p's < 0.01) among patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. The findings from multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that educational level, age, urinary incontinence, disease stigma, anxiety, and social support significantly influenced social alienation among elderly patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Elderly patients who undergo radical prostatectomy often experience social alienation. This study found that social alienation was associated with factors such as educational level, age, urinary incontinence, social support, anxiety, and disease stigma. Consequently, healthcare providers should actively monitor the degree of social alienation in elderly patients after radical prostatectomy and provide suitable psychological care to facilitate positive social reintegration and alleviate their feelings of social alienation.

Index cost comparison of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery in colon and rectal cancer resection: a retrospective financial investigation of surgical methodology innovation at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted colorectal cancer resection (R-CR) has become increasingly commonplace in contrast to traditional laparoscopic cancer resection (L-CR). The aim of this study was to compare the total direct costs of R-CR to that of L-CR and to compare the groups with respect to costs related to LOS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colon and/or rectal cancer resection via R-CR or L-CR instrumentation between January 1, 2015 and December 31 2018, at our institution, were evaluated and compared. Primary outcomes were overall cost, supply cost, operating time and cost, postoperative length of stay (LOS), and postoperative LOS cost. Secondary outcomes were readmission within 30 days and mortality during the surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty R-CR (mean age 64.9 ± 12.4 years) and 258 L-CR (mean age 66.4 ± 15.5 years) patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean direct cost between R-CR and L-CR was significantly higher ($8756 vs $7776 respectively, p=0.001) as well as the supply cost per case ($3789 vs $2122, p < 0.001). Operating time was also higher for R-CR than L-CR (224 min vs 187 min, p = 0.066) but LOS was slightly lower (5.08 days vs 5.55 days, p = 0.113).

CONCLUSIONS

Cost is the main obstacle to easy and widespread use of the platform at this junction, though new developments and competition could very well reduce costs. Supply cost was the main reason for increased costs with robotic resection.

More work is needed on cost-utility analyses of robotic-assisted surgery

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.

METHODS

Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear." Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.

Visceral adiposity is associated with worse urinary and sexual function recovery after radical prostatectomy: Results from a longitudinal cohort study

OBJECTIVE

A prospective longitudinal cohort study on the impact of anthropometric measures on the sexual function and continence recovery in patients treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is presented.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Anthropometric measures, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and International Prostatic Symptoms Score questionnaires, were collected before surgery and at the end of follow-up period. All patients were assigned into the following groups: A) non-obese; B) non-obese with central adiposity; C) obese without central adiposity; D) obese with central adiposity. Urinary and sexual functions were the outcome measures.

RESULTS

At the end of follow-up, in 29 patients with visceral adiposity (VA) the median IIEF-5 was 14 (IQR 7-18) while in 49 non-VA patients (62.8%) was 22 (IQR 17-24) (p < 0.001). Twenty-three patients (79.3%) with VA reported complete continence, while 6 (20.7%) used ≥ 2 pads per day. Forty-eight patients (97.9%) without VA reported complete continence. VA was confirmed as a strong independent predictor for worse continence (HR 3.67; 2.75-4.51 CI95% p = 0.003) and sexual function recovery (HR: 4.51; 3.09-5.63 CI95% p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We truly believe obese with visceral adiposity patients with prostate cancer should receive detailed preoperative counseling before surgery, including higher risk of suboptimal functional outcomes.

Intraoperative multimodal analgesic bundle containing dexmedetomidine and ketorolac may improve analgesia after robot-assisted prostatectomy in patients receiving rectus sheath blocks

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) has replaced open prostatectomy. However, RALP does not reduce postoperative pain compared to the open approach. We explored whether bundled intraoperative intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine and ketorolac reduced opioid requirements during the 24 h after RALP.

METHODS

Eighty patients (two parallel groups) were enrolled in this prospective non-randomized study from September 2020 to November 2020. All received preoperative rectus sheath blocks for analgesia after RALP. A multimodal analgesic bundle (dexmedetomidine and ketorolac) was administered intraoperatively in the study group (n = 39) but not in the control group (n = 40). The total postoperative opioid requirements (expressed in milligrams of intravenous morphine) and pain scores (derived using a visual analog scale) were compared between the two groups up to 24 h after surgery.

RESULTS

The two groups were demographically similar. During surgery, patients in the study group received less remifentanil and more ephedrine than controls. The study group required significantly less opioids during the 24 h after surgery (28.3 vs. 40.0 mg, p = 0.006). The between-group pain scores differed significantly at 1 and 6 h after surgery. All other postoperative characteristics were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The intraoperative multimodal analgesic bundle (intravenous dexmedetomidine and ketorolac) improved postoperative analgesia after RALP in patients with rectus sheath blocks, as evidenced by the opioid-sparing effect after surgery.

Venous Gas Embolism During Radical Robotic Prostatectomy: A Case Report and Evidence-Based Management Algorithm

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has gained rapid popularity in the last two decades after early reports of excellent survival rates, quick learning curves, and minimal invasion or tissue damage. Given the anatomical location of surgical prostatectomies and the utilization of intra-abdominal gas during laparoscopy, there is a risk of developing venous air embolism (VAE). We present a case of a 62-year-old male with hypothyroidism and benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent robotic suprapubic prostatectomy under general anesthesia. One hour after incision the ETCO2 suddenly dropped (40 mmHg to 25 mmHg) as did the SpO2 (98% to 90%). There were no other vital sign changes, nor was there significant blood loss. The surgical team was notified, which prompted the surgeon to inform us that he had just been dissecting around the pelvic venous plexus. At this point, with the clinical suspicion of VAE, abdominal insufflation pressure was lowered, and inspired oxygen was increased to 100%. After 10 minutes, SpO2 and ETCO2 normalized. A debrief and literature review inspired us to develop a laparoscopic-specific VAE management algorithm, with attention to robotic-case management issues. To the best of our knowledge, this is a rare case report describing a clinical VAE during RARP.

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy following colo-rectal surgery: a user's guide

To assess the feasibility and operative outcomes of RARP following colo-rectal surgery. A prospective database of patients undergoing RARP is maintained at our Institution since January 2015. We reviewed all patients undergoing RARP after previous colo-rectal surgery. Overall, 49 (7.4%) of 658 RARPs were performed after previous pelvic surgery, 14 (2.1%) of which following colo-rectal surgery after an interval of 5 years. (a) Colo-rectal surgery. Previous colo-rectal surgery included resection of the left colon (n = 6), and right colon (n = 4), and rectum (n = 4). Histopathology showed pT0-T2N0 in 5, pT3N0-1 in 3, and benign conditions in 4. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was elevated (4 ng/ml or greater) or slightly elevated (3.5-4 ng/ml) in 9 (65%) of 14 cases at the time of colo-rectal surgery. (b) Prostatectomy. Overall prostatectomy and adhesiolysis median operative times were 235 and 42 min, respectively. A robotic approach was accomplished in 11 cases with previous uncomplicated colo-rectal surgery; open conversion occurred in 3 cases. Risk factors for open conversion during RARP were: history of multiple or complicated abdominal surgery, previous open conversion, and hospital stay > 10 days. Postoperative complications included: anemization (n = 2), persistent drain output (n = 1), and urinary tract infection (n = 1). The robotic approach was successful in the case of previous uncomplicated colo-rectal surgery. The risk of intestinal injury during conversion might suggest a direct retropubic approach in case of previous multiple or complicated abdominal surgery. A planned elective colo-rectal surgery should include a thorough urologic evaluation, considering the risk of a subsequent prostate surgery.

Pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer: Laparoscopy is not dead

CONTEXT

Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in localized prostate cancer is feasible through an open, laparoscopic or robot-assisted approach. Data comparing the three approaches is sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a review in order to compare the effectiveness of the different PLND approaches.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

A search was performed including the following words: ("pelvic lymph node dissection") OR ("pelvic lymphadenectomy") AND ("French"[Language] OR "English"[Language]) AND ("1990"[Date-Publication]: "3000"[Date-Publication]) AND prostatectomy[Title]). Twenty-nine articles were finally included in the qualitative synthesis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer is a minimally invasive procedure with a relatively short operative time, minimal blood loss, lower level of pain, shorter hospital stay, and fewer perioperative complications when compared to an open approach. This technique is more cost-effective than a robot-assisted approach.

CONCLUSION

Concerning the treatment of localized prostate cancer, laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection should be learned and applied by urologists.

Characteristics of urodynamic study parameters associated with intermediate-term continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in elderly patients

PURPOSE

To investigate the relationship between urodynamic study (UDS) data and recovery of urinary incontinence (UI) in elderly patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five prostate cancer (PCa) patients received UDS before and at 3 months after RARP. They were divided into two groups; a younger group (<70 years old, n = 47) and older group (≥70 years, n = 28), and each was classified according to urinary continence (UC) or UI at 3 months post-RARP. Continence was defined as being pad-free or 1-safety pad usage per day.

RESULTS

In the older group, preoperative maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) in the UI group was significantly lower than that in the UC group. Detrusor overactivity (DO) rate was significantly higher in the older UI group than in the older UC group at both pre- and 3 months post-RARP. Persistent DO rate pre- and post-RARP was significantly higher in the older group than in the younger group. Regardless of age, postoperative DO was an independent predictor of UI 6 months post-RARP.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients, low preoperative MUCP and both pre- and postoperative DO are associated with postoperative UI.

Cost Analysis of Robotic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass in a Single Academic Center: How Expensive Is Expensive?

BACKGROUND

Although the use of da Vinci robotic platforms in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, it is still controversial because of financial concerns.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study is to evaluate the cost of robotically assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (R-RYGB) versus conventional laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (L-RYGB).

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive primary bariatric patients who underwent R-RYGB and compared them with patients who underwent L-RYGB during the same time period. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Direct cost data was generated using the StrataJazz reporting module, which is fed daily from EPIC, our electronic health record system, and contains hospital-based data only. Secondary outcomes were 30-day rates of complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

RESULTS

We found no difference in primary or secondary outcomes following R-RYGB and L-RYGB. The overall cost for R-RYGB and L-RYGB was not statistically different (median total cost for R-RYGB and L-RYBG was $6431.34 and $6349.09, P > 0.05, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB ($2248.51 versus $19,836.29, respectively, P < 0.0001, respectively). R-RYGB had lower cost of supplies as well as a shorter length of stay compared with L-RYGB (mean 1.5 versus 1.7 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed no cost difference between R-RYGB and L-RYGB, with a decreased cost of supplies and trend toward lower hospital stay favoring R-RYGB. Further studies are needed to evaluate the outcomes of R-RYGB compared with L-RYGB; however, the cost of robotic surgery may not be a prohibitive factor.

Clinical efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol has been identified to be beneficial in the amount of operations such as gastrointestinal surgery. However, the efficacy and safety in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy/laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP/LRP) still remain controversial.

Method

We searched randomized controlled trials and retrospective cohort studies comparing ERAS versus conventional care for prostate cancer patients who have undergone RALP/LRP. ERAS-related data were extracted, and quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale and the Jadad scale.

Result

As a result, seven trials containing 784 prostate cancer patients were included. ERAS was observed to be significantly associated with shorter length of hospital stay (SMD − 2.55, 95%CI − 3.32 to − 1.78, P < 0.05), shorter time to flatus (SMD − 1.55, 95%CI − 2.26 to − 0.84, P < 0.05), shorter time to ambulate (SMD − 6.50, 95%CI − 10.91 to − 2.09, P < 0.05), shorter time to defecate (SMD − 2.80, 95%CI − 4.56 to − 1.04, P < 0.05), and shorter time to remove drainage tube (SMD − 2.72, 95%CI − 5.31 to − 0.12, P < 0.05). Otherwise, no significant difference was reported in other measurements.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ERAS can reduce length of hospital stay, time to flatus, time to defecate, time to ambulate, and time to remove drainage tube in prostate cancer patients who have undergone RALP/LRP compared with conventional care.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) and LRP in patients with prostate cancer based on risk groups

Objective

To compare the perioperative and pathological outcomes between robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) and LRP based on the patient's risk.

Patients and methods

The medical records of 588 patients with prostate cancer who underwent RP, using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques (240 LRP and 348 RALRP) by a single surgeon during January 2008 to June 2018 at the Ramathibodi Hospital, were retrospectively reviewed. The patient's risk was classified according to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guideline, 2018. The demographic, perioperative, and pathological data of patients were collected. The differences in perioperative and pathological outcomes between LRP and RALRP in each risk classification were assessed using chi-square, Fisher's exact tests and logistic regression, as appropriate.

Results

In terms of positive margins, RALRP had significant advantages in high-risk patients when compared to LRP (adjusted odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.84), while there were no differences in the low- and intermediate-risk patients. Overall, the patients who underwent RALRP had significant advantages over those who underwent LRP in terms of operative time, estimate blood loss, and blood transfusion rate. While, adjacent organ injury rate and length of hospital stay were similar for both techniques in all subgroup analyses.

Conclusion

MIS techniques appear to be safe, especially RALRP, which has significantly better perioperative outcomes in all subgroups of patient risk classification, and in the high-risk patient group it seems to have better pathological outcomes when compared to LRP.

Abbreviations

EBL: estimated blood loss; LOS: length of hospital stay; PSM: positive surgical margin; (L)(O)(RAL)RP: (laparoscopic) (open) (robot-assisted laparoscopic) radical prostatectomy; MIS: minimally invasive surgery.

The complications of the HoLEP learning curve. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) could have better outcomes with decreased complication rates if compared to traditional techniques (transurethral resection and open prostatectomy) for the surgical relief of bladder outlet obstruction. Despite this, its use has not been implemented in the urology community, probably due to the high complication rates of the HoLEP learning curve (HoLC).

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the complication rates in HoLC and compare these with those of traditional techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

a systematic literature search was performed in MedLine and Embase using the search terms «HoLEP» and «holmium laser enucleation». We identified 680 records and selected 15 studies following PRISMA criteria.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

1705 cases in the learning curves of 59 surgeons were analyzed. Most of the studies do not report complications in a standardized way. Intraoperative complication rates are low and usually without long-term impact. Postoperative complication rates are limited and show improvement with practice. The complication rates in the HoLC are similar or lower to those reported by traditional techniques.

CONCLUSION

Complication rates in HoLC are not higher than those reported by traditional techniques. HoLEP learning should not be delayed for fear of increasing complications or their severity.

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.

RESULTS

We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.

Perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open radical prostatectomy: 10 years of cases at Ramathibodi Hospital

Background

This study aims to compare the perioperative and pathological outcomes of open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) at Ramathibodi Hospital within Mahidol University in Thailand.

Methods

From January 2008 to July 2017, 679 RPs were performed. Patients' data were collected retrospectively to evaluate their perioperative and pathological outcomes. This data included the age, body mass index (BMI), serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level, clinical stage, Gleason score (GS) from biopsy, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), perioperative complications, blood transfusion rate, adjacent organ injury rate, length of hospital stay, pathological stage, GS of the biopsy specimen, specimen weight (g), and marginal status of the patients.

Results

Of the 679 RPs performed, 128 (19.28%) were ORPs, 241 (36.30%) were LRPs, and 295 (44.43%) were RALRPs. Patients who underwent a RALRP had a significant advantage in EBL (1,600, 500, and 300 mL for ORPs, LRPs, and RALRPs, respectively), overall complications, and blood transfusion rate. As they are minimally invasive techniques, LRP and RALRP presented an advantage in terms of the length of hospital stay (an average of 9, 6, and 6 days for ORPs, LRPs, and RALRPs, respectively) and adjacent organ injury rate. ORPs also had the shortest operative time (160, 210, and 200 min for ORPs, LRPs, and RALRPs, respectively). However, the specimen weight and marginal status were similar in all of the techniques.

Conclusions

Minimally invasive RP techniques, such as LRPs and RALRPs, appear to be safe, have significantly better perioperative outcomes than ORPs, and have comparable pathological outcomes to those of ORPs.

Cost analysis of robotic sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG) in a single academic center: debunking a myth!

BACKGROUND

Although use of the da Vinci robotic platform in bariatric surgery is gaining momentum, there are financial concerns.

OBJECTIVES

Our retrospective study evaluated the cost of robotically assisted sleeve gastrectomy (R-SG) versus conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (L-SG).

SETTING

Center of Excellence bariatric surgery center in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients who underwent primary R-SG and compared them with L-SG patients. Primary outcomes were overall cost for length of stay, operating time, and supplies. Secondary outcomes were 30-day complications, reoperations, and readmissions.

RESULTS

We had no adverse events in either group. The overall cost for R-SG and L-SG was not statistically different (mean total cost for R-SG and L-SG was $5308.99 and $4918.88, respectively). Operating time cost was significantly higher for R-SG compared with L-SG ($1340 versus $112 for R-SG and L-SG, respectively). R-SG had a shorter length of stay compared with L-SG (1.4 versus 1.5 d, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed no difference in cost R-SG and L-SG, with a trend toward shorter length of stay for R-SG over time.

Infectious Complications of Conventional Laparoscopic vs Robotic Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that using minimally invasive surgical techniques (conventional laparoscopy or robotic) for prostatectomy is associated with lower perioperative complication rates compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. However, differences in infectious complications between these minimally invasive approaches are not well characterized. To study this further, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of prostatectomy, comparing robotic prostatectomy (RP) with conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy (LP).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through September 2018 for studies evaluating minimally invasive prostatectomy and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled odds ratio (pOR) estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I² estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. pORs were calculated separately based on the indication for prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 14,121 patients undergoing minimally invasive prostatectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between RP and LP (pOR 0.94; 95% CI 0.50, 1.76). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing RP with LP among patients with prostate cancer (pOR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43, 1.24). We observed that infectious complications were nearly threefold higher with the robotic approach in earlier studies (published between 2007 and 2012, pOR 2.81; 95% CI 1.07, 7.39), but no significant difference was found in later studies (between 2013 and 2018, pOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.40, 1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of infectious complications associated with RP was no different than that associated with conventional LP.

Oncological and functional outcomes following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at a single institution: a minimum 5-year follow-up

Background

To evaluate mid-term oncological and functional outcomes in patients with prostate cancer treated by robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) at our institution.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 128 patients with prostate cancer who underwent RALP at our institution between February 2008 and April 2010. All patients enrolled in this study were followed up for at least 5 years. We analyzed biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis and predictive factors for BCR using multivariate Cox regression analysis. Continence recovery rate, defined as no use of urinary pads, was also evaluated.

Results

Based on the D’Amico risk classification, there were 30 low-risk patients (23.4%), 47 intermediate-risk patients (38.8%), and 51 high-risk patients (39.8%), preoperatively. Based on pathological findings, 50.0% of patients (64/128) showed non-organ confined disease (≥T3a) and 26.6% (34/128) had high grade disease (Gleason score ≥8). During a median follow-up period of 71 months (range, 66-78 months), the frequency of BCR was 33.6% (43/128) and the median BCR-free survival was 65.9 (0.4-88.0) months. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that high grade disease (Gleason score ≥8) was an independent predictor for BCR (hazard ratio=4.180, 95% confidence interval=1.02-17.12, p=0.047). In addition, a majority of patients remained continent following the RALP procedure, without the need for additional intervention for post-prostatectomy incontinence.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated acceptable outcomes following an initial RALP procedure, despite 50% of the patients investigated demonstrating high-risk features associated with non-organ confined disease.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair: a comprehensive cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery is still debatable. Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has no clear clinical benefit over laparoscopic repair. We performed a comprehensive cost-analysis comparison between the two approaches for evaluation of their cost-effectiveness in a large healthcare system in the Western United States.

METHODS

Health records in 32 hospitals were queried for procedural costs of inguinal hernia repairs between January 2015 and March 2017. Elective robotic-assisted or laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repairs were included. Cost calculations were done using a utilization-based costing model. Total cost included: fixed cost, which comprises medical device and personnel costs, and variable cost, which comprises disposables and reusable instruments costs. Other outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), conversion to open, and operative times. Statistics were done using t test for continuous variables and χ² test for categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 2405 cases, 734 robotic-assisted (633 Primary: 101 recurrent) and 1671 laparoscopic (1471 Primary: 200 recurrent), were included. The average total cost was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the robotic-assisted group ($5517) compared to the laparoscopic group ($3269). However, the average laparoscopic variable cost ($1105) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the robotic-assisted cost ($933). Whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups for LOS and conversion to open, average operative times were significantly higher in the robotic-assisted group (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis for primary and recurrent inguinal hernias matched the overall results.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic-assisted inguinal hernia repair has a significantly higher cost and significantly longer operative times, compared to the laparoscopic approach. The study has shown that only fixed cost contributes to the cost difference between the two approaches. Medical device cost plus the longer operative times are the main factors driving the cost difference. Laparoscopic unilateral inguinal hernia repair is more cost-effective compared to a robotic-assisted approach.

A brief overview of the development of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) has gained remarkable worldwide distribution and has become a standard procedure for localised prostate cancer, indeed a new ‘gold standard’. There are proven advantages in reduced blood loss and shorter recovery time. Whilst case series publications often report improved functional outcomes, systematic hospital and healthcare data analyses mostly do not support these findings. Robotic surgery remains more costly. Its use has also increased knowledge about the anatomy of RP.