An analysis of sexual health information on radical prostatectomy websites

Study Type – Therapy (content analysis) Level of Evidence 3

OBJECTIVE

To define the nature of information posted on websites related to radical prostatectomy (RP), specifically its accuracy and comprehensiveness, as RP is associated with erectile dysfunction (ED).

METHODS

We reviewed 70 robotic RP (RARP) and 20 open RP (ORP) medical centres. Their websites were reviewed for various factors, by two separate reviewers whose reviews were not seen by each other. Websites were graded based on accuracy and comprehensiveness of information by the senior investigator.

RESULTS

Of the academic and community‐based RARP centres, 55% and 79% had specific websites (P < 0.05); 45% of RARP sites had generic information copied directly from the website of Intuitive Surgical (Sunnyvale, CA, USA; the manufacturer of the robotic system). ED was mentioned by only 54% of RARP sites and 45% of ORP sites; 17% of RARP sites were deemed accurate, compared with 30% of ORP sites (P < 0.05). Just over 1% of RARP sites were considered comprehensive, vs 10% of ORP sites (P < 0.05). A third of RARP sites had a direct link to the Intuitive Surgical website (16% academic vs 53% community, P < 0.05), compared to 10% of open sites (P < 0.05). Of most interest was that half of the RARP sites suggested that ED rates were lower for RARP than for ORP; this compared to ED rates being cited as lower for ORP on 5% of the ORP sites (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the stature of RP as a treatment option for men with prostate cancer, and the recent increase in the use of RARP, the accuracy of information pertaining to sexual health on RP websites is poor, with many making false statements about the long‐term outcomes for erectile function. This inadequacy appears to be greater on RARP than on ORP websites.     

Surgical method influences specimen margins and biochemical recurrence during radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To perform a meta-analysis comparing the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) between open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

Methods

A systematic review was performed on Pubmed, Embase and Scopus databases in August 2016, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. References retrieved were evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale and the Black and Down’s tool for quality assessment.

Results

Nine retrospective cohorts comparing ORP and RARP were selected and included in the meta-analysis. All studies reported the PSMs. Patients treated with RARP presented less risk of PSMs (risk difference ?0.04, p 0.02) than those treated with ORP. Five articles reported hazard ratios for BCR-free survival. Patients treated with RARP had less risk of BCR (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58–0.89) than those treated with ORP. Reports for PSM assessment were considered of adequate quality, while the studies retrieved for BCR assessment were considered limited because of the heterogeneity of their results.

Conclusion

Patients with high-risk prostate cancer treated with RARP have less risk of having PSM and BCR when compared to those treated with ORP. A strong conclusion is precluded due to the observational nature of the studies retrieved for our analysis.

     

Hospitalization Costs for Radical Prostatectomy Attributable to Robotic Surgery

Background

With health technology innovation responsible for higher health care costs, it is essential to have accurate estimates regarding the differential costs between robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Objective

To describe the total hospitalization costs attributable to robotic and open surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP).

Design, setting, and participants

Using a population-based cohort by merging the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the American Hospital Association (AHA) survey from 2006 to 2008, we identified 29 837 prostate cancer patients who underwent RP.

Interventions

ORP and RARP.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The primary outcome was total hospitalization costs adjusted to year 2008 US dollars. Generalized estimating equations were used to identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with total hospitalization costs and to estimate costs of ORP and RARP adjusted for case mix and hospital teaching status, location, and annual case volume.

Results and limitations

Overall, 20 424 (68.5%) patients were surgically treated with RARP, and 9413 (31.5%) patients underwent ORP. Compared to ORP, patients undergoing RARP had shorter median length of stay (1 d vs 2 d; p < 0.001) and were less likely to experience any postoperative complications (8.2% vs 11.3%; p < 0.001). However, patients undergoing RARP had higher median hospitalization costs ($10 409 vs $8862; p < 0.001). After adjusting for patient and hospital features, RARP was associated with higher total hospitalization costs compared to ORP ($11 932 vs $9390; p < 0.001). Our results are limited by a study design using retrospective population-based data.

Conclusions

Despite RARP having lower complications and shorter length of stay than ORP, total hospitalization costs are higher for patients treated with RARP compared with those treated with ORP.     

Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: A machine learning framework for intelligent analysis of patient-reported outcomes from online cancer support groups

Background

The advantages of Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP) over open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in Prostate cancer perioperatively are well-established, but quality of life is more contentious. Increasingly, patients are utilising online cancer support groups (OCSG) to express themselves. Currently there is no method of analysis of these sophisticated data sources. We have used the PRIME-2 (Patient Reported Information Multidimensional Exploration version 2) framework for automated identification and intelligent analysis of decision-making, functional and emotional outcomes in men undergoing ORP vs. RARP from OCSG discussions.

Comparative Effectiveness of Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy Cancer Control

Background

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) remains controversial, and no improvement in cancer control outcomes has been demonstrated over open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Objective

To examine population-based, comparative effectiveness of RARP versus ORP pertaining surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy.

Design, setting, and participants

This was a retrospective observational study of 5556 RARP and 7878 ORP cases from 2004 to 2009 from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results–Medicare linked data.

Intervention

RARP versus ORP.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Propensity-based analyses were performed to minimize treatment selection biases. Generalized linear regression models were computed for comparison of RP surgical margin status and use of additional cancer therapy (radiation therapy [RT] or androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]) by surgical approach.

Results and limitations

In the propensity-adjusted analysis, RARP was associated with fewer positive surgical margins (13.6% vs 18.3%; odds ratio [OR]: 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66–0.75), largely because of fewer RARP positive margins for intermediate-risk (15.0% vs 21.0%; OR: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59–0.75) and high-risk (15.1% vs 20.6%; OR: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63–0.77) disease. In addition, RARP was associated with less use of additional cancer therapy within 6 mo (4.5% vs 6.2%; OR: 0.75; 95% CI, 0.69–0.81), 12 mo (OR: 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62–0.86), and 24 mo (OR: 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57–0.78) of surgery. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of prostate-specific antigen levels to determine biochemical recurrence.

Conclusions

RARP is associated with improved surgical margin status relative to ORP for intermediate- and high-risk disease and less use of postprostatectomy ADT and RT. This has important implications for quality of life, health care delivery, and costs.

Patient summary

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) versus open RP is associated with fewer positive margins and better early cancer control because of less use of additional androgen deprivation and radiation therapy within 2 yr of surgery.     

Community-based Outcomes of Open versus Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Background

Identifying the optimal surgical approach for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) managed in the community setting remains controversial due to the lack of robust, prospective data.

Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques

OBJECTIVE

To assess the perioperative complications and early oncological results in a comparative study matching open radical retropubic (RRP) and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) groups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From August 2002 to December 2005 we identified 294 patients undergoing RARP for clinically localized prostate cancer. A comparison RRP group of 588 patients from the same period was matched 2:1 for surgical year, age, preoperative prostate‐specific antigen level, clinical stage and biopsy Gleason grade. Perioperative complications were compared. Patients completed a standardized quality‐of‐life questionnaire. Pathological features were assessed and Kaplan‐Meier estimates of biochemical progression‐free survival (PFS) were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall perioperative complications between the RARP and RRP groups (8.0% vs 4.8%, P = 0.064). Wound herniation was more common after RARP (1.0% vs none, P = 0.038), and development of bladder neck contracture was more common after RRP (1.2% vs 4.6%; P < 0.018). The hospital stay was less after RARP (29.3% vs 19.4%, P = 0.004, for a stay of 1 day). At the 1‐year follow‐up there was no significant difference in continence (RARP 91.8%, RRP 93.7%, P = 0.344) or potency (RARP 70.0%, RRP 62.8%, P = 0.081) rates. The biochemical PFS was no different between treatments at 3 years (RARP 92.4%, RRP 92.2%; P = 0.69).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in overall early complication, long‐term continence or potency rates between the RARP and RRP techniques. Furthermore, early oncological outcomes were similar, with equivalent margin positivity and PFS between the groups.     

Open Versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Obese Men

Objectives

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been shown to reduce blood loss, peri-operative complications and length of stay when compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). We sought to determine whether the reported benefits of RARP over ORP translate to obese patients.

Patients and Methods

We utilized the 2009–2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify all obese men with prostate cancer who underwent ORP and RARP. Our primary outcome was the presence of a peri-operative adverse event (i.e. blood transfusion, complication, prolonged length of stay). We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine whether RARP in obese patients was independently associated with decreased odds of all three outcomes.

Results

We identified 9,108 obese patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. On multivariable analysis, the use of RARP in the obese population was not independently associated with decreased odds of developing a peri-operative complication (OR = 0.81, CI: 0.58–1.13, p = 0.209). RARP was, however, associated with decreased odds of blood transfusion (OR = 0.17, CI: 0.10–0.30, p < 0.001) and prolonged length of stay (OR = 0.28, CI: 0.20–0.40, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that in obese patients, the use of RARP may reduce length of stay and blood transfusions compared to ORP. Both approaches, however, are associated with similar odds of developing a complication.Key Words: Obesity, Prostatectomy, Prostate cancer, Robotic surgery     

Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with previous transurethral resection of prostate

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4

OBJECTIVE

? To critically analyze and compare surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with and without previous transurethral resection of prostate (TURP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

? The study comprised 158 cases of RARP for clinically localized prostate cancer, including 26 cases that had undergone previous TURP (Group A). ? Surgical, oncological and functional (short‐ and intermediate‐term) outcomes of Group A were compared with 132 cases without previous TURP (Group B).

RESULTS

? Post TURP patients were found to have significantly greater blood loss (494 vs 324 mL) and a need for bladder neck reconstruction (26.7% vs 9.7%) compared to the non‐TURP group. ? Surgical time (189 vs 166 min), conversion rate, margin positivity rate and biochemical recurrence rate were also higher. ? Incontinence rates were higher both at 6 (14% vs 11.8%) and 12 (25% vs 8%) months follow‐up.

CONCLUSIONS

? RARP is feasible but challenging after TURP. It entails a longer operating time, greater operative difficulty and compromised oncological or continence outcomes. ? These cases should be handled by an experienced robotic surgeon with the appropriate expertise.     

Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching

Study Type – Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4 What’s known on the subject? and What does the study add? Thus far, no institution has investigated the impact of the most commonly used surgical techniques – open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy – on biochemical outcome. However, recent data from large meta‐analysis suggest that the impact of the chosen surgical technique on biochemical outcome is minimal and statistically not relevant. We are the first to apply the method of propensity score matching in the urology literature to compare three different surgical techniques. This method is intended to simulate a randomized trial which is unlikely to be undertaken for radical prostatectomies. We confirmed previous data that the surgical technique does not seem to have an impact on biochemical outcome following radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE

? To investigate a single institution experience with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with respect to pathological and biochemical outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

? A group of 522 consecutive patients who underwent RARP between 2003 and 2008 were matched by propensity scoring on the basis of patient age, race, preoperative prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), biopsy Gleason score and clinical stage with an equal number of patients who underwent LRP and RRP at our institution. ? Pathological and biochemical outcomes of the three cohorts were examined.

RESULTS

? Overall positive surgical margin rates were lower among patients who underwent RRP (14.4%) and LRP (13.0%) compared to patients who underwent RARP (19.5%) (P= 0.010). There were no statistically significant differences in positive margin rates between the three surgical techniques for pT2 disease (P= 0.264). ? In multivariate logistic regression analysis, surgical technique (P= 0.016), biopsy Gleason score (P < 0.001) and preoperative PSA (P < 0.001) were predictors of positive surgical margins. ? Kaplan–Meier analysis did not show any statistically significant differences with respect to biochemical recurrence for the three surgical groups.

CONCLUSIONS

? RRP, LRP and RARP represent effective surgical approaches for the treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. A higher overall positive SM rate was observed for the RARP group compared to RRP and LRP; however, there was no difference with respect to biochemical recurrence‐free survival between groups. ? Further prospective studies are warranted to determine whether any particular technique is superior with regard to long‐term clinical outcomes.     

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample

Background

Prior to the introduction and dissemination of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), population-based studies comparing open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) found no clinically significant difference in perioperative complication rates.

Objective

Assess the rate of RARP utilization and reexamine the difference in perioperative complication rates between RARP and ORP in light of RARP's supplanting laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) as the most common MIRP technique.

Design, setting, and participants

As of October 2008, a robot-assisted modifier was introduced to denote robot-assisted procedures. Relying on the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between October 2008 and December 2009, patients treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) were identified. The robot-assisted modifier (17.4x) was used to identify RARP (n = 11 889). Patients with the minimally invasive modifier code (54.21) without the robot-assisted modifier were classified as having undergone LRP and were removed from further analyses. The remainder were classified as ORP patients (n = 7389).

Intervention

All patients underwent RARP or ORP.

Measurements

We compared the rates of blood transfusions, intraoperative and postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay (pLOS), and in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses of propensity score–matched populations, fitted with general estimation equations for clustering among hospitals, further adjusted for confounding factors.

Results and limitations

Of 19 462 RPs, 61.1% were RARPs, 38.0% were ORPs, and 0.9% were LRPs. In multivariable analyses of propensity score–matched populations, patients undergoing RARP were less likely to receive a blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28–0.40), to experience an intraoperative complication (OR: 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.71) or a postoperative complication (OR: 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.96), and to experience a pLOS (OR: 0.28; 95% CI, 0.26–0.30). Limitations of this study include lack of adjustment for tumor characteristics, surgeon volume, learning curve effect, and longitudinal follow-up.

Conclusions

RARP has supplanted ORP as the most common surgical approach for RP. Moreover, we demonstrate superior adjusted perioperative outcomes after RARP in virtually all examined outcomes.     

Superior Quality of Life and Improved Surgical Margins Are Achievable with Robotic Radical Prostatectomy After a Long Learning Curve: A Prospective Single-surgeon Study of 1552 Consecutive Cases

Background

Comparative studies suggest functional and perioperative superiority of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) over open radical prostatectomy (ORP).

Objective

To determine whether high-volume experienced open surgeons can improve their functional and oncologic outcomes with RARP and, if so, how many cases are required to surpass ORP outcomes and reach the learning curve plateau.

Design, setting, and participants

A prospective observational study compared two surgical techniques: 1552 consecutive men underwent RARP (866) or ORP (686) at a single Australian hospital from 2006 to 2012, by one surgeon with 3000 prior ORPs.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Demographic and clinicopathologic data were collected prospectively. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite quality of life (QoL) questionnaire was administered at baseline, 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 mo. Multivariate linear and logistic regression modelled the difference in QoL domains and positive surgical margin (PSM) odds ratio (OR), respectively, against case number.

Results and limitations

A total of 1511 men were included in the PSM and 609 in the QoL analysis. RARP sexual function scores surpassed ORP scores after 99 RARPs and increased to a mean difference at 861st case of 11.0 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9–16.1), plateauing around 600–700 RARPs. Early urinary incontinence scores for RARP surpassed ORP after 182 RARPs and increased to a mean difference of 8.4 points (95% CI, 2.1–14.7), plateauing around 700–800 RARPs. The odds of a pT2 PSM were initially higher for RARP but became lower after 108 RARPs and were 55% lower (OR: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22–0.92) by the 866th RARP. The odds of a pT3/4 PSM were initially higher for RARP but decreased, plateauing around 200–300 RARPs with an OR of 1.15 (0.68–1.95) at the 866th RARP. Limitations include single-surgeon data and residual confounding.

Conclusions

RARP had a long learning curve with inferior outcomes initially, and then showed progressively superior sexual, early urinary, and pT2 PSM outcomes and similar pT3 PSM and late urinary outcomes. Learning RARP was worthwhile for this high-volume surgeon, but the learning curve may not be justifiable for late-career/low-volume surgeons; further studies are needed.     

Laser robotically assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a pilot study of technical feasibility in the canine model

OBJECTIVES

To examine the feasibility of using laser energy during nerve‐sparing robotically assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), as the energy sources currently used for haemostasis in RARP adversely affect cavernous nerve function, while clips require application by a skilled assistant, but laser energy potentially allows precise dissection with minimal collateral tissue injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used laser‐based RARP in 10 dogs, using the da Vinci S system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and a prototype robotic laser instrument. The potassium‐titanyl‐phosphate laser was used for dissection at 2–6 W, with intermittent use of the neodymium‐doped yttrium‐aluminium‐garnet laser at 5 W for coagulating larger vessels. The peak intracavernosal pressure response to nerve stimulation was recorded as a percentage of mean arterial pressure (ICP%MAP) before and after RARP. Five dogs were killed immediately after RARP and five were maintained alive for 72 h; the haemoglobin and haematocrit levels were measured before and after RARP in the latter five dogs.

RESULTS

All 10 procedures were performed solely using laser energy and no additional haemostatic manoeuvres. The median prostate excision time was 65 min. The ICP%MAP before and after RARP (median 98.5% and 77.0%, P = 0.12) were not significantly different; similarly, the respective haemoglobin (median 14.4 vs 12.6 g/dL, P = 0.06) and haematocrit levels (45.1% vs 40.2%, P = 0.06) were not significantly different. Two dogs had catheter‐related complications and one had an anastomotic leak. There were no laser‐related complications or postoperative haemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

Laser RARP is feasible in dogs and further assessment is warranted.     

Continence,potency and oncological outcomes after robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy: early trifecta results of a high‐volume surgeon

Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

OBJECTIVE

? To evaluate early trifecta outcomes after robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed by a high‐volume surgeon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

? We evaluated prospectively 1100 consecutive patients who underwent RARP performed by one surgeon. In all, 541 men were considered potent before RARP; of these 404 underwent bilateral full nerve sparing and were included in this analysis. ? Baseline and postoperative urinary and sexual functions were assessed using self‐administered validated questionnaires. ? Postoperative continence was defined as the use of no pads; potency was defined as the ability to achieve and maintain satisfactory erections for sexual intercourse >50% of times, with or without the use of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors; Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive PSA levels of >0.2 ng/mL after RARP. ? Results were compared between three age groups: Group 1, ≤55 years, Group 2, 56–65 years and Group 3, >65 years.

RESULTS

? The trifecta rates at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after RARP were 42.8%, 65.3%, 80.3%, 86% and 91%, respectively. ? There were no statistically significant differences in the continence and BCR‐free rates between the three age groups at all postoperative intervals analysed. ? Nevertheless, younger men had higher potency rates and shorter time to recovery of sexual function when compared with older men at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months after RARP (P < 0.01 at all time points). ? Similarly, younger men had higher trifecta rates at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months after RARP compared with older men (P < 0.01 at all time points).

CONCLUSION

? RARP offers excellent short‐term trifecta outcomes when performed by an experienced surgeon. ? Younger men had higher overall trifecta rates when compared with older men at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months after RARP.     

Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched‐pair analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the early oncological, perioperative and functional outcomes of robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open retropubic RP (RRP) in a laparoscopically naive centre, as robotic assistance aids the laparoscopically naive surgeon in minimally invasive prostate surgery, by offering magnification and superior dexterity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 1 November 2006 to 31 December 2007, 120 patients had RARP; this group was followed prospectively and evaluated for early oncological, perioperative and functional outcomes (measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery), and compared to a historical control group of consecutive patients who had RRP from 20 May 2004 to 28 February 2007. All patients were operated by the same laparoscopically naive surgeons. The comparison was by matched‐pair analysis.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were equivalent, although there was a higher percentage of patients with pT3/pT4 disease in the RRP group. As a proxy for oncological outcome, positive surgical margins were equivalent in the two groups (22% RARP vs 25% RRP, P = 0.77). The overall mean (range) surgical duration was significantly longer in RARP group, at 215 (165–450) min vs 160 (90–240) min in the RRP group (P < 0.001). However, RARP had a statistically significant advantage over RRP for estimated blood loss, of 200 vs 800 mL (P < 0.001), duration of catheterization (6 vs 7 days P < 0.001) and length of stay (3 vs 6 days, P < 0.001) The 3, 6 and 12‐month continence rates were 70%, 93% and 97% vs 63%, 83% and 88% after RARP and RRP, respectively (P = 0.15, 0.011 and 0.014). The 3, 6 and 12 month overall potency recovery rate was 31%, 43% and 61% vs 18%, 31% and 41%, after RARP and RRP, respectively (P = 0.006, 0.045 and 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience showed the feasibility of RARP in a laparoscopically naive centre. RRP seems to be a faster procedure, whereas RARP provided better results in terms of estimated blood loss, hospitalization and functional results. The early oncological outcome seemed to be equivalent in the two groups.     

The impact of nerve‐sparing robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy on lower urinary tract function: Prospective assessment of patient‐reported outcomes and frequency volume charts

Aims

To elucidate the effects of a nerve‐sparing (NS) procedure on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and urinary function after robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), the associations between the NS procedure and LUTS and urinary function were investigated.

Methods

The participants in this study were 200 consecutive patients who underwent RARP. These patients were categorized into unilateral and bilateral NS groups and the non‐NS group. The International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), quality of life (QOL) index, frequency‐volume chart, uroflowmetry, 1‐h pad test, and the 5‐item International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF‐5) questionnaire were evaluated before and after RARP.

Results

The total IPSS score was significantly lower in the unilateral (P = 0.03) and bilateral NS groups (P = 0.03) than in the non‐NS group after RARP. Diurnal maximum voided volume (MVV) values were significantly greater in the bilateral NS group than in the non‐NS group after RARP (P = 0.002). Nocturnal frequency was significantly decreased in the unilateral NS group than in the non‐NS group after RARP (3 months P = 0.01, 12 months P = 0.01). Erectile function was significantly better in both the unilateral NS group (P < 0.0001) and the bilateral NS group (P = 0.02) than in the non‐NS group 12 months after RARP.

Conclusions

The NS procedure in RARP has the possibility to improve not only erectile function, but also LUTS, owing to both the increase of MVV and the decrease of nocturia. Therefore, the NS procedure is also recommended from the viewpoint of early improvement of LUTS and lower urinary tract dysfunction after RARP.     

Interval from prostate biopsy to robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy: effects on perioperative outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether shorter intervals (<4 and 6 weeks) between prostate biopsy and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have a detrimental effect on perioperative outcomes, as recent studies showed that open RP shortly after prostate biopsy does not adversely influence surgical difficulty or efficacy, but RARP relies solely on visual cues rather than tactile sensation to determine posterior surgical planes of dissection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 559 patients undergoing RARP from March 2004 to July 2007 was retrospectively reviewed. The interval between prostate biopsy and RARP was determined and patients with intervals of ≤4 weeks were compared to those >4 weeks. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analysed to determine statistically significant differences between the groups. This comparison was then repeated with a ≤6‐ vs >6‐week interval, and examined with a multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In the ≤4‐week group (27 patients) vs the >4‐week group (509 patients), there was a significantly (P < 0.05) higher rate of complications (18.5% vs 6.9%). In the ≤6‐week group (81 patients) vs the >6‐week group (455 patients) there was a smaller but still significantly higher rate of complications (13.6% vs 6.4%). These results were still significant when controlling for patient and disease characteristics and the ‘learning curve’. There was also a significantly higher rate of transfusion in the ≤6‐week group (3.7%) than the >6‐week group (0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that RARP should be delayed after prostate biopsy; RARP within 6 weeks of biopsy was associated with a greater risk of complications even when controlling for disease and patient characteristics.     

Adequacy of lymphadenectomy among men undergoing robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of lymph node dissection (LND) and nodal yields between patients treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORRP) and robot‐assisted RRP (RARP) in a contemporary single‐institution series.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 1278 consecutive patients (716 ORRP and 562 RARP) from one institution were accrued prospectively in an institutional database, and the data analysed retrospectively. Disease risk was assessed using the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. The likelihood of LND, nodal yield, and likelihood of node positivity were compared between ORRP and RARP.

RESULTS

Of patients treated with ORRP and RARP, 47.8% and 31.8% had LND, respectively, with more receiving LND over time in both surgical approaches. Men undergoing LND had a higher disease risk than those not undergoing LND (mean CAPRA score 4.3 vs 2.1, P < 0.01), and there was no difference in risk between those undergoing ORRP or RARP (mean CAPRA score 3.0 vs 2.9, P = 0.29). The mean (sd ) nodal yield was 14.4 (8.7) for ORRP and 9.3 (5.4) for RARP (P < 0.01). Among patients undergoing LND, 5.8% of ORRP and 4.1% of RARP patients had positive nodes (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The indications for LND and template dissection should be the same regardless of surgical approach. The nodal yield was adequate using both approaches; the yield was higher among ORRP than RARP patients, but the difference was not large, and is less remarkable than the wide variation in yield within each approach. Several factors might explain this variation.     

Return to work following robot-assisted laparoscopic and open retropubic radical prostatectomy: A single-center cohort study to compare duration of sick leave

Purpose

To compare the duration of sick leave in patients with localized prostate cancer after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open retropubic RP (ORP) at a German high-volume prostate cancer center.

Does a history of previous surgery or radiation to the prostate affect outcomes of robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate retrospectively whether or not previous treatment to the prostate alters the perioperative outcomes from robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) after the initial ‘learning curve’, as there are conflicting data on outcomes of RP in patients with previous treatment to the prostate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients who had RARP between March 2005 and August 2007, and analysed demographic, perioperative variables and pathological data. In all, 510 patient charts were reviewed, identifying 24 patients with a history of previous treatment to the prostate including transurethral resection or incision of the prostate, transurethral microwave therapy, transurethral needle ablation, photoselective vaporization, simple prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, brachytherapy, and open bladder neck reconstruction (group 1) and 486 with no previous treatment (group 2).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups in body mass index, clinical stage, grade or prostate volume, but the patients in group 1 were older (70 vs 65 years, P = 0.001). Outcome analysis comparing groups 1 and 2 showed an estimated blood loss of 155 vs 137 mL, length of hospital stay of 2.2 vs 1.5 days, operative duration of 200 vs 186 min and catheter time of 12 vs 8 days, respectively; only the last was statistically significant (P = 0.03). There was an 8.3% and 6.8% complication rate in groups 1 and 2, respectively, and the respective overall positive margin rate was 20.8% and 22.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

A history of previous treatment of the prostate does not appear to compromise the perioperative outcomes of RARP.