A novel "three-port" trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Three-port approach vs conventional laparoscopic radical cystectomy with orthotopic neobladder: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent three-port laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with orthotopic neobladder (ONB) and traditional five-port method.

METHODS

From January 2017 to November 2020, 100 patients underwent LRC + ONB at a third-level grade A hospital.

RESULTS

Our study included 55 patients who underwent three-port LRC and 45 patients who underwent the five-port method. There were no significant differences in perioperative data such as operation time (253.00 ± 43.89 vs. 259.07 ± 52.31 min, P = 0.530), estimated blood loss (EBL)(97.64 ± 59.44 vs. 106.67 ± 55.35 min, P = 0.438), day to flatus (2.25 ± 1.49 vs. 2.76 ± 1.77 days, P = 0.128), day to regular diet (7.07 ± 2.99 vs. 7.96 ± 3.32 days, P = 0.165), day to pelvic drain removal (9.58 ± 3.25 vs. 10.53 ± 3.80 days, P = 0.180), and hospital stay after operation (11.62 ± 3.72 vs. 11.84 ± 4.37 days, P = 0.780) between the two groups. The only significant difference was in the treatment cost (P = 0.035). Similarly, postoperative complications, quality of life, and tumor outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The three-port method is safe and feasible for patients suitable for traditional five-port LRC with an orthotopic neobladder.

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.

Three-port approach vs standard laparoscopic radical cystectomy with an ileal conduit: a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the three-port approach and conventional five-port laparoscopic radical cystectomy (LRC) with an ileal conduit.

METHODS

Eighty-four patients, who were diagnosed with high-risk non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder carcinoma and underwent LRC with an ileal conduit between January 2018 and April 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. Thirty and fifty-four patients respectively underwent the three-port approach and five-port LRC. Clinical characteristics, pathological data, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up data were analysed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in perioperatively surgical outcome, including pathology type, prostate adenocarcinoma incidence, tumour staging, and postoperative creatinine levels between the two groups. The operative time (271.3 ± 24.03 vs. 279.57 ± 48.47 min, P = 0.299), estimated blood loss (65 vs. 90 mL, P = 0.352), time to passage of flatus (8 vs. 10 days, P = 0.084), and duration of hospitalisation post-surgery (11 vs. 12 days, P = 0.922) were no clear difference between both groups. Compared with the five-port group, the three-port LRC group was related to lower inpatient costs (12 453 vs. 14 134 $, P = 0.021). Our follow-up results indicated that the rate of postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, and the oncological outcome did not show meaningful differences between these two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Three-port LRC with an ileal conduit is technically safe and feasible for the treatment of bladder cancer. On comparing the three-port LRC with the five-port LRC, our technique does not increase the rate of short-term and long-term complications and tumour recurrence, but the treatment costs of the former were reduced.