Comparison of surgical technique (open vs. laparoscopic) on pathological and long term functional outcomes following radical prostatectomy

LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: SINGLE CENTER CASE SERIES

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is traditionally characterized as a technically difficult procedure with a long learning curve but it is successfully performed worldwide. The aim of this paper was to assess the initial learning curve and clinical outcomes for LRP in our center. We performed a retrospective study including 63 LRP cases, in the course of 22 months, performed by 2 urologists, with no previous LRP experience. All patients were previously assessed by a multidisciplinary team and were selected on the basis of low and intermediate risk disease attributes according to the classification of prostate cancer risk groups of the European Association of Urology. The main outcomes of follow-up are procedure duration, estimated blood loss, complications, positive surgical margins, biochemical relapse and urinary continence. The median follow-up was 19.6 months. The median procedure duration was 196.8 minutes and median blood loss 257.1 mL. Significant decrease in both outcomes was observed when comparing first and last cases in the series. There were 5 (7.9%) Clavien Dindo grade II complications. Undetectable prostate specific antigen (PSA) was observed in 59 (93.6%) patients, and fifty-five patients (87.3%) were continent. Following a methodical learning approach, LRP can be safely mastered with favorable outcomes.

Comparison of surgical approaches to radical prostatectomy in our series beyond oncological and functional outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared to those of open (ORP) and laparoscopic (LRP) surgery. The interest lies fundamentally in the quality-of-life (QoL) evaluation, postoperative recovery, and personal satisfaction of patients with the intervention (PS) beyond oncological and functional outcomes.

METHODS

Six hundred eighty-five RPs were performed in our center between 2011-2018 (17,8% ORP, 22,2% LRP and 60% RARP). Patients were prospectively assessed through follow-up until April 2020 and a multiple questionnaire at 12-months post-RP that included ICIQ-SF, SHIM, IPSS, IQL and questions about pain, postoperative recovery and PS. Also baseline and postoperative patient- and treatment-related data were collected, and binomial logistic regressions were performed for the 1 vs.1 comparisons (ORP vs. RARP and LRP vs. RARP).

RESULTS

RARP patients have overall fewer comorbidities, less tumor aggressiveness, more operative time requirements and more positive surgical margins than ORP and LRP patients. Nevertheless, RARP outperforms ORP in: hospital stay (days) (OR 0,86; 95% CI: 0,80-0,94), hemoglobin loss (OR 0,38; 95% CI: 0,30-0,47), transfusion rate (OR 0,18; 95% CI: 0,09-0,34), early complications (p = 0,001), IQL (OR 0,82; 95% CI: 0,69-0,98), erectile function (OR 0,41; 95% CI: 0,21-0,79), pain control (OR 0,82; 95% CI: 0,75-0,89), postoperative recovery (p < 0,001) and choice of a different approach (OR 5,55; 95% CI: 3,14-9,80). RARP is superior to LRP in: urinary continence (OR 0,55; 95% CI: 0,37-0,82), IPSS (OR 0,96; 95% CI: 0,93-0,98), IQL (OR 0,76; 95% CI: 0,66-0,88), erectile function (OR 0,52; 95% CI: 0,29-0,93), postoperative recovery (p = 0,02 and 0,004), PS (p = 0,005; 0,002; and 0,03) and choice of a different approach (OR 7,79; 95% CI: 4,63-13,13).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our study globally endorse a positive effectiveness of RARP over ORP and/or LRP, both on functional issues, postoperative recovery, QoL and PS. Oncologic results should still be improved.

Oncological and functional outcomes of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An 18-years, single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

To present a retrospective analysis on the oncological and functional outcomes of a single-center experience on a large series of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (eLRP) with an extended follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Herein we present a retrospective review of patients who underwent eLRP. Oncological and functional follow-up data were collected by means of outpatient visits and telephone interviews, assessing overall mortality and biochemical recurrence-free survival. Patients with clinical T4 stage prostate cancer (PCa), previous surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), previous androgen deprivation, radiotherapy, concomitant chemotherapy and/or experimental therapies, and with insufficient follow-up data were excluded. Preoperative data recorded were age, body mass index, ultrasound prostate volume, preoperative PSA and clinical stage of PCa. Operative data (operative time, nerve sparing technique and any perioperative complication) and pathological findings were obtained by consulting the surgical and pathological reports. Oncological and functional follow-up were collected during follow-up visits and telephone interview.

RESULTS

Between January 2001 and December 2019, overall 938 eLRP were performed at our Institution. The median follow-up was 132 months. 69.7% of the patients had complete dataset. The estimated overall biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival was 71.4% at 5 years and 58.9% at 10 years. Cancer specific survival was 84,5%. Erectile function was preserved in the most of patients as postoperative IIEF-5 score within 12 months after surgery was > 12 in the 82.1%. About the urinary incontinence, 0.76% of the patients presented severe incontinence (continued and persistent loss of urine) and 7.0% were mildly incontinent (using up to one pad per day). Conclusions; eLRP has shown oncological and functional results comparable to other minimally invasive techniques and to open radical prostatectomy (ORP), with favorable perioperative outcomes than the open technique and a reduced complication rate.

Real-time, functional intra-operative localization of rat cavernous nerve network using near-infrared cyanine voltage-sensitive dye imaging

Despite current progress achieved in the surgical technique of radical prostatectomy, post-operative complications such as erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence persist at high incidence rates. In this paper, we present a methodology for functional intra-operative localization of the cavernous nerve (CN) network for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy using near-infrared cyanine voltage-sensitive dye (VSD) imaging, which visualizes membrane potential variations in the CN and its branches (CNB) in real time. As a proof-of-concept experiment, we demonstrate a functioning complex nerve network in response to electrical stimulation of the CN, which was clearly differentiated from surrounding tissues in an in vivo rat prostate model. Stimulation of an erection was confirmed by correlative intracavernosal pressure (ICP) monitoring. Within 10 minutes, we performed trans-fascial staining of the CN by direct VSD administration. Our findings suggest the applicability of VSD imaging for real-time, functional imaging guidance during nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

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.

Comparison of various continence definitions in a large group of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a multicentre, prospective study

BACKGROUND

Due to the usage of various measurement methods and definitions, comparing continence rates after radical prostatectomy is a challenging task. This study compares continence rates based on different methods and aims to identify the definition for continence which agrees best with the patients' subjective assessment of continence. Additionally, continence was controlled for multiple influencing factors.

METHODS

This prospective multicentre study was carried out in seven hospitals throughout Germany. Before and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery self-reporting questionnaires were completed and returned by 329 (84.4%) of 390 eligible patients. The questionnaires were independently evaluated and analysed by a third party. Association of continence with demographic, operative, and tumour factors in an ongoing comprehensive prostate cancer database was evaluated.

RESULTS

The continence rate drops substantially for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy but increases again with time. Concrete numbers vary considerably depending on definition - 44% at 3 months and 68% at 12 months after surgery (0 pads) vs. 71 and 90% (0-1 pads). Significant confounding variables regarding continence rate are nerve-sparing procedure, categorized Gleason score, rehabilitative cure treatment, and pelvic floor training. The definition of 0 pads for continence coincides greater than 0-1 pads with the patients' self-assessment of being continent.

CONCLUSION

A standardized definition for continence would be desirable, as it is one of the most important preconditions to guarantee sound comparison of continence rates. Since there are enough other factors that make comparison difficult, we suggest using the definition of "0 pads". It is easily measured objectively, leaves no room for interpretation, and agrees best with the patients' self-assessment.

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.

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.

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.

Transumbilical laparoendoscopic single-site radical prostatectomy and cystectomy with the aid of a transurethral port: a feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the surgical technique and report early outcomes of transurethral assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) radical prostatectomy (RP) and LESS radical cystectomy (RC) in a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2014 and March 2016, a total of 114 LESS RPs and RCs were performed, comprising 68 LESS RPs, 38 LESS RCs with cutaneous ureterostomy (CU) and eight LESS RCs with orthotopic ileal neobladder (OIN). Access was achieved via a single-port, with four channels placed through a transumblical incision. After the apex of prostate was separated from the urethra, a self-developed port ('Zhu's port') was inserted through the urethra to facilitate resection of prostate and urethrovesical anastomosis. The peri-operative and postoperative data were collected and analysed retrospectively. Patients were followed up postoperatively for evidence of long-term side effects.

RESULTS

All the procedures were completed successfully. No conversion to conventional laparoscopic surgery was necessary. For LESS RP, the average operating time was 152 min. Estimated blood loss was 117 mL. The mean hospital stay was 16.4 days after surgery. For LESS RC with CU and LESS RC with OIN, the mean operating times were 215 and 328 min, mean estimated blood loss was 175 and 252 mL, and mean hospital stay was 9.4 and 18.2 days, respectively. Six patients required blood transfusion (5.26%). Intra-operative complications occurred in two patients (1.75%), and postoperative complications in nine (7.89%). Fourteen out of 68 (20.6%) patients who underwent LESS RP had positive surgical margins. Follow-up ranged from 10 to 30.6 months. In the prostate cancer cases, good urinary control was observed in 35.3%, 97.1% and 100% of patients at 1, 6 and 12 months after the operation, respectively, while biochemical recurrence was observed in 11.8% patients. In the bladder cancer cases, two patients had local recurrence and two patients had distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that LESS RP and LESS RC are feasible and safe with the aid of a transurethral port. Operating through the transurethral port might overcome the challenges posed by the single-port laparoscopic approach.

Postprostatectomy Erectile Dysfunction: A Review

In the current era of the early diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques, erectile dysfunction (ED) represents an important issue, with up to 68% of patients who undergo radical prostatectomy (RP) complaining of postoperative erectile function (EF) impairment. In this context, it is crucial to comprehensively consider all factors possibly associated with the prevention of post-RP ED throughout the entire clinical management of PCa patients. A careful assessment of both oncological and functional baseline characteristics should be carried out for each patient preoperatively. Baseline EF, together with age and the overall burden of comorbidities, has been strongly associated with the chance of post-RP EF recovery. With this goal in mind, internationally validated psychometric instruments are preferable for ensuring proper baseline EF evaluations, and questionnaires should be administered at the proper time before surgery. Careful preoperative counselling is also required, both to respect the patient's wishes and to avoid false expectations regarding eventual recovery of baseline EF. The advent of robotic surgery has led to improvements in the knowledge of prostate surgical anatomy, as reflected by the formal redefinition of nerve-sparing techniques. Overall, comparative studies have shown significantly better EF outcomes for robotic RP than for open techniques, although data from prospective trials have not always been consistent. Preclinical data and several prospective randomized trials have demonstrated the value of treating patients with oral phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5is) after surgery, with the concomitant potential benefit of early re-oxygenation of the erectile tissue, which appears to be crucial for avoiding the eventual penile structural changes that are associated with postoperative neuropraxia and ultimately result in severe ED. For patients who do not properly respond to PDE5is, proper counselling regarding intracavernous treatment should be considered, along with the further possibility of surgical treatment for ED involving the implantation of a penile prosthesis.

Significant reduction in positive surgical margin rate after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by application of the modified surgical margin recommendations of the 2009 International Society of Urological Pathology consensus

OBJECTIVES

To verify retrospectively the margin status and analyse the location and characteristics of positive surgical margins (PSMs) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP), by a central pathology review, based on the consensus conference 2009 updated margin criteria from the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The detailed PSM characteristics of 441 patients who underwent laparoscopic RP (LRP) between 1999 and 2007 were centrally reviewed with regard to location, number, Gleason score at the PSM and tumour width. Predictors of PSMs and the impact of several PSM characteristics on clinical outcomes were examined. Patient characteristics were compared using the chi-squared test. Differences in recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were analysed using the log-rank test and presented as Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis for the prediction of RFS was performed.

RESULTS

Central pathology review using the updated PSM definition according to ISUP 2009, resulted in reclassification of a substantial number of patients with PSMs (n = 113, 26.6%) as R0. Several PSM characteristics with a higher risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) were identified as the strongest independent predictors of RFS: pathological stage; Gleason score; and the presence of multiple PSMs (hazard ratio [HR] 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-2.96; P = 0.025). Further analysis replacing the location of PSM by the width categories of PSM showed that a PSM >3 mm was an independent predictor of RFS (HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.08-2.72; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of PSMs after LRP for prostate cancer remains unclear. PSMs in the present cohort of patients undergoing LRP had different characteristics and conferred different risks of BCR. A better understanding of PSM characteristics and a careful standardized pathological evaluation is needed to adequately counsel patients with respect to prognosis and adjuvant therapy after LRP.

Comparison of functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the 6-mo and 12-mo functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP); robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Web of Knowledge databases updated to March, 2014 for relevant published studies. After data extraction and quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1. Either a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model was used. Potential publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of the funnel plots, and verified by the Egger linear regression test.

RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified in total: 14 articles comparing LRP with RRP, 12 articles comparing RARP with RRP, and 11 articles comparing RARP with LRP. For urinary continence, a statistically significant advantage was observed in RARP compared with LRP or RRP both at 6 mo [odds ratio (OR) = 1.93; P < 0.01, OR = 2.23; P < 0.05, respectively] and 12 mo (OR = 1.47; P < 0.01, OR = 2.93; P < 0.01, respectively) postoperatively. The continence recovery rates after LRP and RRP, with obvious heterogeneity (6-mo: I² = 74%; 12-mo: I² = 75%), were equivalent (6-mo: P = 0.52; 12-mo: P = 0.75). In terms of potency recovery, for the first time, we ranked the three surgical approaches into a superiority level: RARP > LRP > RRP, with a statistically significant difference at 12 mo [RARP vs LRP (OR = 1.99; P < 0.01); RARP vs RRP (OR = 2.66; P < 0.01); LRP vs RRP (OR = 1.34; P < 0.05)], respectively. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses according to adjustment of the age, body mass index, prostate volume, Gleason score or prostate-specific antigen did not vary significantly.

CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that minimally invasive approaches (RARP or LRP) are effective procedures for functional recovery. However, more high-quality randomized control trials investigating the long-term functional outcomes are needed.