Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: omitting a pelvic drain

Drains Are Not Necessary in the Majority of Robotic Urologic Procedures

Abdominal drain use is a common practice after urologic procedures involving urinary tract violation with the intention of externalizing potential urine leaks and preventing urinomas. Drains may alternatively be placed to detect bleeding or bowel injury, prevent hematomas or lymphoceles, or for other reasons equally lacking any evidence showing benefits. In general, the practice of placing abdominal drains in urology is based on dogma and learned habits.

A prospective comparative study of routine versus deferred pelvic drain placement after radical prostatectomy: impact on complications and opioid use

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association of post-RP drain placement with post-operative complications and opioid use at a high-volume institution.

METHODS

A prospective, comparative cohort study of patients undergoing robot-assisted or open RP was conducted. Patients for two surgeons did not routinely receive pelvic drains ("No Drain" arm), while the remainder routinely placed drains ("Drain" arm). Outcomes were evaluated at 30 days including Clavien-Dindo complications and opioid use. Intention-to-treat primary analysis and additional secondary analyses were performed using appropriate statistical tests and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 498 total patients, 144 (28.9%) were in the No Drain arm (all robot-assisted) and 354 (71.1%) in the Drain arm. In the No Drain arm, 19 (13.2%) intraoperatively were chosen to receive drains. There was no difference in overall or major (Clavien ≥ 3) complications between groups (p = 0.2 and 0.4, respectively). Drain deferral did not predict complications on multivariable analysis adjusted for age, BMI, comorbidities, clinical risk, surgical approach, operating time, lymphadenectomy, and number of nodes removed [OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.34-1.11, p = 0.10]; nor did it predict symptomatic fluid collection, adjusting for lymphadenectomy and nodes removed [OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.43-3.60, p = 0.8]. Drain deferral did not decrease opioid use (p = 0.5). Per protocol analysis and restriction to robot-assisted cases demonstrated similar results.

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in adverse events, complications, symptomatic collections, or opioid use with deferral of routine drain placement after RP. Experienced surgeons may safely defer drain placement in the majority of robot-assisted RP cases.

Review of the use of prophylactic drain tubes post‐robotic radical prostatectomy: Dogma or decent practice?

Objective

To assess the necessity of routine prophylactic drain tube use following robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Method

We performed a literature review using the Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases with no restriction of language from January 1900 to January 2020. The following terms we used in the literature search: prostatectomy, radical prostatectomy, robot assisted, drainage, and drain tube.

Results

We identified six studies that examined the use of routine prophylactic drain tubes following RARP. One of these studies was a randomized study that included 189 patients, with 97 in the pelvic drain (PD) arm and 92 in the no pelvic drain (ND) arm. This non‐inferiority showed an early (90‐day) complication rate of 17.4% in the ND arm versus 26.8% in the PD arm (P < .001). Another non‐inferiority randomized control trial (RCT) showed a complication rate of 28.9% in the PD group versus 20.4% in the ND group (P = .254). Similarly, the other studies found no benefit of routine use of prophylactic drain tube after RARP.

Conclusion

Drain tubes play a role during robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy, however, following a review of the current available literature, they can be safely omitted and we suggest that clinicians may be selective in their use.

Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery or fast track surgery pathways in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and fast track surgery (FTS) protocols have been applied to a variety of surgeries and have been proven to reduce complications, accelerate rehabilitation, and reduce medical costs. However, the effectiveness of these protocols in minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (miRP) is still unclear. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the impact of ERAS and FTS protocols in miRP.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases to collect randomized and observational studies comparing ERAS/FTS versus conventional care in miRP up to July 1, 2019. After screening for inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment by two independent reviewers, the meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan 5.3 and STATA 15.1 software. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

In total, 11 studies involving 1,207 patients were included. Pooled data showed that ERAS/FTS was associated with a significant reduction in length of stay (LOS) (WMD: -2.41 days, 95% CI: -4.00 to -0.82 days, P=0.003), time to first anus exhaust (WMD: -0.74 days, 95% CI: -1.14 to -0.34 days, P=0.0003), and lower incidence of postoperative complications (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.92, P=0.01). No significant differences were found between groups for operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain, blood transfusion rate, and readmission rate (P>0.01).

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis suggests that the ERAS/FTS protocol is safe and effective in miRP. However, more extensive, long-term, prospective, multicenter follow-up studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are required to validate our findings.

Prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement in major uro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on radical prostatectomy, cystectomy and partial nephrectomy

PURPOSE

To systematically analyze the impact of prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement or omission in uro-oncologic surgery.

METHODS

This systematic review follows the Cochrane recommendations and was conducted in line with the PRISMA and the AMSTAR-II criteria. A comprehensive database search including Medline, Web-of-Science, and CENTRAL was performed based on the PICO criteria. All review steps were done by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool for randomized trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

The search identified 3427 studies of which eleven were eligible for qualitative and ten for quantitative analysis reporting on 3664 patients. Six studies addressed radical prostatectomy (RP), four studies partial nephrectomy (PN) and one study radical cystectomy. For RP a reduction in postoperative complications was found without drainage (odds ratio (OR)[95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.62[0.44;0.87], p = 0.006), while there were no differences for re-intervention (OR[CI]: 0.72[0.39;1.33], p = 0.300), lymphocele OR[CI]: 0.60[0.22;1.60], p = 0.310), hematoma (OR[CI]: 0.68[0.18;2.53], p = 0.570) or urinary retention (OR[CI]: 0.57[0.26;1.29], p = 0.180). For partial nephrectomy no differences were found for overall complications (OR[CI]: 0.99[0.65;1.51], p = 0.960) or re-intervention (OR[CI]: 1.16[0.31;4.38], p = 0.820). For RC, there were no differences for all parameters. The overall-quality of evidence was assessed as low.

CONCLUSION

The omission of drains can be recommended for standardized RP and PN cases. However, deviations from the standard can still mandate the placement of a drain and remains surgeon preference. For RC, there is little evidence to recommend the omission of drains and future research should focus on this issue.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER (PROSPERO)

CRD42019122885.

Regular vs. selective use of closed suction drains following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a regional quality improvement collaborative

BACKGROUND

Closed suction drain (CSD) placement is common in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Our goal is to quantify outcomes of RARP for patients undergoing RARP by surgeons who regularly or selectively use CSDs.

METHODS

Patients undergoing RARP (4/2014-7/2017) were prospectively entered into the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) registry. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS) >2 days, >16-day catheterization, 30-day readmission, and clinically significant urine leak or ileus. Retrospective analysis of each adverse event was performed comparing groups using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

In all, 6746 RARPs were performed by 115 MUSIC surgeons. CSDs were used in 4451 RARP (66.0%), with wide variation in surgeon CSD use (median: 94.7%, range: 0-100%, IQR: 45-100%). The cohorts of patients treated by surgeons with regular vs. selective CSD usage were similar. CSD use pattern was not associated with rates of prolonged catheterization (4.6% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.17) or readmission (4.5% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.35) and multivariable analysis confirmed these findings (each p > 0.10). Regular CSD use was associated with LOS >2 days (8.4% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.001) and multivariable analyses indicated an odds ratio (OR) of 1.42 (95% CI: 1.12-1.79; p = 0.017) and increased likelihood of clinically significant ileus (OR: 1.64; CI: 1.14-2.35; p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are specific situations in which CSDs are beneficial, e.g. anastomotic leak or observed lymphatic drainage, regular CSD use during RARP was associated with a greater likelihood of LOS >2 days and clinically significant ileus. Our data suggest that CSD should be placed selectively rather than routinely after RARP.

Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

To assess the impact of eliminating routine drain placement in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) on the risk of postoperative complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An experienced single surgeon performed RALP on 651 consecutive patients at our institution from 2008 to 2012. Before August 2011, RALP with or without PLND included a routine peritoneal drain placed during surgery. Thereafter, routine intraoperative placement of drains was omitted, except for intraoperatively noted anastomotic leakage. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare complication rates between study periods and the actual drain placement status after adjusting for standard prespecified covariates.

RESULTS

Most patients (92%) did not have ≥grade 2 complications after surgery and only two patients (0.3%) experienced a grade 4 complication. The absolute adjusted risk of a grade 2-5 complication was 0.9% greater among those treated before August 2011 (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.3%-5.1%; p=0.7), while absolute adjusted risk of a grade 3-5 complication was 2.8% less (-2.8%; 95% CI-5.3%-0.1%; p=0.061). RESULTS based on drain status were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine peritoneal drain placement following RALP with PLND did not confer a significant advantage in terms of postoperative complications. Further data are necessary to confirm that it is safe to omit drains in most patients.

Advances in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy over Time

Since the introduction of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), robotics has become increasingly more commonplace in the armamentarium of the urologic surgeon. Robotic utilization has exploded across surgical disciplines well beyond the fields of urology and prostate surgery. The literature detailing technical steps, comparison of large surgical series, and even robotically focused randomized control trials are available for review. RALP, the first robot-assisted surgical procedure to achieve widespread use, has recently become the primary approach for the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. As a result, surgeons are constantly trying to refine and improve upon current technical aspects of the operation. Recent areas of published modifications include bladder neck anastomosis and reconstruction, bladder drainage, nerve sparing approaches and techniques, and perioperative and postoperative management including penile rehabilitation. In this review, we summarize recent advances in perioperative management and surgical technique for RALP.

[Perioperative management of radical prostatectomy: a nationwide survey in Japan]

PURPOSE

Recently, various types of radical surgery have been performed in Japan. To elucidate the surgical consequences, morbidity and mortality, and perioperative care, we conducted a nationwide survey.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Assisted by the Japanese Society of Endourology, perioperative data from 156 hospitals participating in this survey in 2007 were analyzed. Using a spreadsheet database, data were collected from each institution.

RESULTS

Open radical prostatectomy was performed in 3,138 patients at 143 hospitals, minimum incision endourological radical prostatectomy in 361 at 15 hospitals, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy via transperitoneal approach in 143 at 11 hospitals and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy via extraperitoneal approach in 337 at 13 hospitals. For open and minimum incision endourological radical prostatectomy, the surgical duration was shorter but the bleeding volume was greater than that in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy via both approaches. As a whole, perioperatvie mortality rate was 0.05% and morbidity rate was 23.4%. Rectal injury was similarly infrequent among the four types of surgery. Superficial surgical site infection was most frequent in open radical prostatectomy. Perioperative management significantly varied among the four types of surgery. In laparoscopic radical prostatectomy via extraperitoneal approach, urethral catheter was removed earlier but acute urinary retention frequently occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In Japan, open radical prostatectomy was the most frequently performed surgery for prostate cancer. Surgical volume per hospital was small, however, mortality was low and morbidity was acceptable. Comparisons of complications and outcomes among the types of currently performed surgery should be useful to promote standardization of the perioperative care.