Does the extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach improve the outcome of radical prostatectomy?

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRPE) became the operative procedure of choice for patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in selected urologic centers around the world. Principal advantages are the minimal invasive nature of the procedure, a superior visualization of the operative field because of the magnification of the optical system, an exact and watertight anastomosis, the possibility of early catheter removal, and a potentially reduced amount of blood loss. Recent data show that oncologic outcome is not compromised by the minimal invasive nature of the procedure. However, a major drawback of LRPE is the transperitoneal route of access to the extraperitoneal organ of the prostate. Therefore, principal disadvantages of LRPE are potential intraperitoneal complications. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy is a further advancement of minimal invasive surgery because it overcomes the limitations of LRPE by the strictly extraperitoneal route of access, combining the advantages of minimal invasive surgery with the advantages of an extraperitoneal procedure. This article reviews the literature on minimally invasive (laparoscopic and endoscopic-extraperitoneal) radical prostatectomy.     

Treatment patterns in people with cystic fibrosis: have they changed since the introduction of ivacaftor?

BackgroundIn late 2012, ivacaftor became available in the UK for people with cystic fibrosis (CF) aged 6 years and over with a G551D mutation. Long-term changes in treatment patterns have not previously been reported. We investigated long-term treatment patterns in people with CF with a G551D mutation who took ivacaftor and compared these with non-ivacaftor-treated cohorts using the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry.MethodsUsing 2007-2018 data we compared treatment patterns between four cohorts: 1: ivacaftor-treated; 2: ivacaftor era (2013-2018), ineligible genotype (no G551D mutation); 3: pre-ivacaftor era (2007-2012), eligible genotype (G551D mutation); 4: pre-ivacaftor era, ineligible genotype. Treatments included: inhaled antibiotics, dornase alfa, hypertonic saline, chronic oral antibiotics and supplementary feeding.ResultsUp to 2012 the percentages of people taking each treatment were similar between the two cohorts defined by genotype and tended to increase by year with a similar slope. Once ivacaftor was introduced, the use of other treatments tended to decrease or remain stable by year for the ivacaftor-treated cohort, whereas it remained stable or increased in the non-ivacaftor-treated cohort. This led to differences in treatment use between the two cohorts in the ivacaftor-era, which became more marked over time.ConclusionsWe have shown a clear divergence in treatment patterns since the introduction of ivacaftor in a number of key treatments widely used in CF. Further research is needed to investigate whether the differences in treatment patterns are associated with changes in health outcomes.     

Retzius space reconstruction following transperitoneal laparoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: does it have any added value?

Retzius space sparing (RSS) during laparoscopic robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) has been offered as an approach that reduces perioperative complications and enables faster gaining of full urinary continence due to bladder anatomy preservation. Retro and transperitoneal techniques have been proposed, whereby RSS has been implemented. We sought to explore whether Retzius space reconstruction (RSR) following transperitoneal RALP will be an advantageous step as well. A prospective registry database of 102 consecutive transperitoneal RALP cases performed by a single surgeon was reviewed. The Retzius space had been opened by dissecting the bladder away from the anterior abdominal wall to the level of both internal rings. In the last 51 cases (RSR group), the peritoneal layer had been sutured back, thus repositioning the bladder back to the anterior abdominal wall and reconstructing the Retzius space. Perioperative factors were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Demographic and perioperative data did not differ between the two groups. RSR group demonstrated shorter length of stay (LOS) compared with the control group (p = 0.01), as well as faster urinary continence recovery (i.e., 0 pads) (p = 0.01). Moreover, lower numbers of Clavien–Dindo class 3 complications and 12 mm port-site hernias (p = 0.03) were seen in the RSR group compared with the control group. RSR following transperitoneal RALP is a simple and efficient step that potentially reduces early and late post-operative complications, shortens LOS and accelerates full urinary continence.     

The 5-year functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy： a real-life experience in Korea

We investigated the functional outcomes regarding erectile function and urinary continence up to 5 years following radical prostatectomy （RP） in a cohort of Korean men. We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathologic data of 85 Korean men who received open uni- or bilateral nerve-sparing RP for clinically localized prostate cancer and were followed up for at least 5 years postoperatively. From medical records, patients＇ status regarding urinary and erectile function at baseline and postoperative followups after RP was assessed. At 24 and 60 months after RP, proportions of subjects continent （no pads used） were 89.4% and 97.6%, respectively （P = 0.007）. Excluding subjects （n = 24） who preoperatively reported having severe erectile dysfunction or lacked relevant informations, proportions of subjects capable of having vaginal intercourse regardless of erectile aid usage were 47.5% and 37.7% at 24 and 60 months from RP, respectively （P = 0.022）. Patient＇s age at surgery （P = 0.047） and salvage radiation therapy （P = 0.026） were observed to be significant predictors of having erections sufficient for intercourse at 60 months from RP in multivariate analysis. Our results showed that while patients＇ postoperative status regarding urinary continence at 2 years from RP is generally maintained or improved at 5 year point, erectile function was observed to significantly declined from 2 years to 5 years following RP. Such decline in erectile function following RP may be more significant among men who were relatively older at surgery or those who received salvage therapy during postoperative follow-ups.     

Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy

OBJECTIVE: To compare morbidity in two groups of patients who underwent retropubic or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in the same period.PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical and pathological data obtained in 50 consecutive patients who underwent retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) from January 2001 to December 2001 were compared to those obtained in 71 consecutive patients who were treated in the same year by extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). The two groups were comparable in terms of mean pre-operative PSA and biopsy Gleason score. The peri-operative data included operative time, intra-operative and post-operative transfusion rates, complication rates, hospitalization length, and duration of catheterization. The following pathological parameters were considered: Gleason score, pathological stage, and positive surgical margin rate. A comparative evaluation of continence recovery (no pads and any leakage) was made only in patients with follow-up longer than 12 months.RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in terms of pathological stage and definitive Gleason score. Operating times were significantly shorter in RRP (p<0.0001). LRP patients showed higher autologous (p<0.001) and eterologous transfusion (p=0.03). No significant difference was observed in terms of complication rates (p=0.07). The rectal injury rate was 2.8% in the laparoscopic group. The mean post-operative hospital stay was 10.2+/-2 days in the surgery group and 7.2+/-3.4 days in the laparoscopy group (p<0.001). Catheterization time was 8.4+/-0.9 days in the surgery group and 8+/-2.8 days in the laparoscopy group (p=0.27). After 12 months, complete continence was achieved in 64% of RRP and 40% of LRP patients, respectively (p=0.29).CONCLUSION: The results of our non-randomized study show that up to now laparoscopic radical prostatectomy does not provide significant advantages in terms of peri-operative morbidity compared with the traditional retropubic approach.     

Oncological and functional results of open,robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter?

The treatment of prostate cancer has undergone a fundamental change in the last decade. New surgical and nonsurgical minimal invasive methods have evolved. As the methodology of the different treatments is commonly known to urologists, this article focuses on oncological and functional outcome of open retropubic (ORP), trans- or extraperitoneal endoscopical (LRP), and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), based on personal experience and review of the literature. A MEDLINE search was performed to review the literature on LRP and RALP between 1982 and 2007 with special emphasis on oncological and functional results, technical considerations, comparison of LRP and RALP to ORP, laparoscopic training, historical aspects, and cost-efficiency of the techniques. Based on diligent training and proctoring programs, a continuous dissemination of laparoscopic techniques takes place. There is a trend towards the extraperitoneal access in most of the minimal invasive programs at least in the European community. Mid-term outcomes of LRP and short-term outcomes of RALP achieved equivalence to open surgery with regards to complications, oncologic and functional results. Distinct advantages of LRP include less postoperative pain, lower transfusion rates, shorter convalescence, and better cosmetics. In contrast to RALP, LRP reaches cost-equivalence with open surgery in selected centers. LRP and RALP reproduce the short-term results of open surgery while providing the advantages of a minimal access. Video-assisted teaching improves the transfer of anatomical knowledge and technical knowhow, but the discussion about the longer learning curve for laparoscopy handling remains. The future will show if European centers adopt the use of robots comparable to the United States. T. R. Herrmann and R. Rabenalt contributed equally to this article.     

The end of robot-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery

Background

Robot-assisted laparoscopy has been used in a wide variety of surgical fields; however, the financial costs involved are high and convincing proof of superiority in terms of quality of life, cost effectiveness and survival is often lacking. Possibly, there might be small benefits for the patient or for the surgeon’s health that might warrant the use of robotics in limited fields of surgery.

Methods

We performed a critical appraisal of the literature, searching for scientific evidence supporting the use of robotics in daily laparoscopic surgery.

Results

Convincing evidence supporting the use of robotics is lacking.

Conclusion

In an era of worldwide economic crisis, it is about time to start a critical discussion as to whether we should drastically limit, or even abandon, the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery and focus on more cost-effective strategies of healthcare improvement. We suggest the use of robotics should be limited to well-powered, randomized clinical trials in a limited field of research.     

Extended lymph node dissection in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy： lymph node yield and distribution of metastases

In this study, we reported our experience performing robotic extended lymph node dissection （eLND） in patients with prostate cancer. A total of 147 patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer who underwent robotic eLND from May 2008 to December 2011 were included in this analysis. The dissection template extended to the ureter crossing the iliac vessels. We assessed lymph node yield, lymph node positivity, and perioperative outcomes. Lymph node positivity was also evaluated according to the number of lymph nodes （LNs） removed （〈22 vs 〉22）. The median number of LNs removed was 22 （11-51）, and 97 positive LNs were found in 24 patients （16.3%）. While the obturator fossa was the most common site for LN metastases （42.3%, 41/97）, the internal iliac area was the most common area for a single positive LN packet （20.8%, 5/24）. Eight patients （33.3%, 8/24） had positive LNs at the common iliac area. The incidence of positive LNs did not differ according to the number of LNs removed. Complications associated with eLND occurred in 21 patients （14.3%） and symptomatic lymphocele was found in five patients （3.4%）. In conclusion, robotic eLND can be performed with minimal morbidity. Furthermore, LN yield and the node positive rate achieved using this robotic technique are comparable to those of open series. In addition, the extent of dissection is more important than the absolute number of LNs removed in eLND, and the robotic technique is not a prohibitive factor for performing eLND.