Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single port (SP) robot radical prostatectomy and multiport (MP) robot radical prostatectomy.MethodsUsing the China National Knowledge database, EMBASE, Cochrane library, PubMed, and other databases to obtain relevant research, SP robot radical prostatectomy and MP robot radical prostatectomy were comprehensively evaluated. The software used to evaluate the impact of the results in the selected articles was Review Manager 5.2. Deviation analysis, forest plot analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out for the collected data.ResultsA total of 7 related studies that met the criteria were finally included. The data showed that the operation time of MP in the control group was significantly longer than that in the SP group [mean difference (MD) =−13.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): (−17.35, −9.23); P<0.00001; I²=50%]. The duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for SP surgery was shorter than that for MP surgery [MD =−18.30; 95% CI: (−29.17, −7.42); P=0.0010; I²=94%]. The blood loss of SP surgery was less than that of MP surgery [MD =−15.54; 95% CI: (−28.37, −2.71); the total effective rate was 0.02; I²=0%]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between SP and MP surgery [risk ratio (RR) =0.95; 95% CI: (0.55, 1.63); P=0.85; I²=0%]. At the same time, the sensitivity analysis and funnel plot showed that this study was robust and publication bias was limited.DiscussionOur results show that SP robotic radical prostatectomy is superior to MP robotic radical prostatectomy in terms of efficacy and safety. SP robot radical prostatectomy is worthy of wide promotion.     

Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis based on a single surgeon’s experience

The background of this study is to compare prospectively the oncological and functional results of open radical prostatectomy (OP) and robotic prostatectomy (RP) from the experience of a single surgeon. Between June 2002 and June 2007, 422 patients underwent radical prostatectomy (OP 199, RP 223). We divided OP patients into 89 early cases (OP-I) and 110 late cases (OP-II) before and after introduction of a robotic system, and RP patients into 35 early cases (RP-I) and 188 late cases (RP-II). Functional outcomes were measured by use of validated questionnaires completed by the patients. There were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics among the four groups, except that RP-I patients had lower biopsy Gleason scores. In the RP groups the mean estimated blood loss was lower and mean durations of hospital stay and bladder catheterization were shorter compared to those of the OP groups. The frequency of intraoperative complications was significantly lower in the RP-II group. The positive surgical margin rates in the RP-II group were similar to or lower than those in the OP groups when stratified by pathologic stage T2 and T3. From one month after surgery, RP-II patients had higher continence rates than OP-II patients. For patients ≥60 years old, recovery of potency was better in the RP-II group. To conclude, RP by an experienced surgeon may have a similar or lower positive surgical margin rate than OP. Additionally, RP may lead to a shorter duration of bladder catheterization and hospital stay and better recovery of continence and potency than obtainable by OP.     

Comparación entre abordajes quirúrgicos de prostatectomía radical en nuestra serie,más allá de los resultados oncológicos y funcionales

ObjectivesTo 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.MethodsSix 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).ResultsRARP 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 say (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=.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<.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=.02 and .004), PS (P=.005; 0.002; and .03) and choice of a different approach (OR: 7.79; 95% CI: 4.63-13.13).ConclusionsThe 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.     

Knotless “three‐U‐stitches” technique for urethrovesical anastomosis during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

We describe a new technique for urethrovesical anastomosis that consists of placing three “U” stitches of Monocryl 2‐0 to connect the bladder neck and urethral stump together. The margins are united by a double passage of the suture, without tying any knots. The sutures are tied on the bladder's surface using Lapra‐Ty clips fixed at a certain distance from where to two mucosal margins have been joined. We carried out this technique on 90 patients who underwent laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. The good joining of the margins, the absence of knots and the minimum trauma to the urethral wall together enable to create an anastomosis that is both “sealed” and “tension free”, allowing a quick “welding” of the margins and an early catheter removal. Regarding urinary continence, 56.6% (51) of patients were continent at catheter removal, 87.6% (78) were continent 3 months later and 98.9% (89) were continent after 6 months. In nine patients (10%), an episode of acute urinary retention occurred within 24 h after the removal of the catheter. We did not encounter any cases of vesicourethral anastomosis stenosis.     

Modified anterior approach to the bladder neck: Simple and reproducible procedure for anterior bladder neck transection during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy

To evaluate the feasibility and reproducibility of a simple technique for identifying the initial cutting point of the bladder neck during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. To precisely identify the prostatovesical junction, we first pulled the anterior bladder wall in an upward direction with the second arm to identify the precise location of the prostatovesical junction where anterior bladder neck dissection is initiated. After one experienced surgeon had established this technique, three surgeons who were less experienced in robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy utilized this method for 50 consecutive robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy cases. The pathological results and the time required to transect the anterior bladder wall were evaluated. There were no cases of positive resection margin on the site of bladder neck. The mean resection time was not significantly different when comparing less experienced surgeons with the experienced surgeon (P = 0.29). In conclusion, this method is a simple and reproducible way to identify the bladder neck during robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy. This technique is also useful (for laparoscopic or open radical prostatectomy) even in difficult scenarios, such as post‐transurethral resection of prostate cases.     

Delayed recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

AIM: To study the rate at which patients regained urinary continence during our institution's early experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. METHODS: The urinary continence of 34 patients was recorded at various intervals following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. These data were compared with those from 49 patients who had undergone radical retropubic prostatectomy. RESULTS: For laparoscopic prostatectomy patients, 2.9% had regained urinary continence at 1 month, 29.4% at 3 months, 46.9% at 6 months, 56.0% at 9 months and 60.0% at 12 months. For retropubic prostatectomy patients, the corresponding rates were 22.4% at 1 month, 63.3% at 3 months, 84.1% at 6 months, 92.9% at 9 months and 92.9% at 12 months. Backward stepwise logistic regression analysis indicated that laparoscopic surgery itself significantly predicted urinary incontinence at every interval from 1 to 9 months following surgery (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients' postoperative recovery of urinary continence was not satisfactory in our early experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Further efforts to elucidate the reason for this poor functional outcome are mandatory before the procedure is accepted as part of standard practice.     

Surgical margin status of open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy specimens

Objectives:   To compare the surgical margin (SM) status between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RRP and LRP, respectively) specimens.
Methods:   Surgical specimens from 137 patients undergoing LRP and 220 patients undergoing RRP for clinically localized prostate cancer were included in the analysis. SM status in each resected specimen, including the number of positive SM as well as their location, was examined.
Results:   The incidence of positive SM in the LRP group was significantly greater than that in the RRP group. Despite the lack of significant difference in the proportion of solitary positive SM between these two groups, the proportion of multiple positive SM in the LRP group was significantly greater than that in the RRP group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anterior positive SM between the two groups, while the incidences of positive SM at the apex, posterior site and bladder neck in the LRP group were significantly greater than those in the RRP group. Furthermore, there were no significant preoperative parameters predicting positive SM in the LRP group. On the other hand, the biopsy Gleason score and clinical T stage were identified as significant predictors of positive SM in the RRP group, of which the biopsy Gleason score was independently related to the presence of positive SM.
Conclusions:   Clinical T stage and Gleason score could be useful predictors of SM status following RRP, while positive SM in LRP specimens were detected irrespective of preoperative parameters, suggesting the need for an effort for further refining the LRP procedure.     

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.

5O岁以下前列腺癌11例报告并文献复习

目的：探讨50岁以下前列腺癌（PCa）的诊断、治疗及预后情况。方法：分析11例50岁以下PCa患者的发病年龄、主要症状、前列腺特异性抗原（PSA）,病理诊断、治疗方法、预后情况,并进行文献资料复习。结果：11例患者平均年龄45．6岁,平均PSA22．3”g／L,平均Gleason评分为7．7分。资料完整患者9例,1例骨扫描提示全身多发骨转移,8例未见转移灶;临床分期T。期3例,Tz期5例,Ts期1例。随访9例,1例行内分泌治疗1．5年后去世,1例经尿道前列腺切除术（TURP）后偶发癌观察等待,7例行前列腺癌根治术患者平均随访4年,3例生化复发,其余4例无生化和临床复发。结论：应提高对50岁以下PCa的警惕性,PSA检查有助于早期诊断,前列腺癌根治术对无远处转移的患者具有良好的治疗效果。     

腹腔镜下根治性前列腺切除术治疗TURP术后偶发前列腺癌的配对分析

目的探讨经尿道前列腺切除术(TURP)后偶发前列腺癌行腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术(LRP)在外科手术、肿瘤学及尿控等方面的影响。方法回顾性分析自2012年1月至2017年12月北部战区总医院泌尿外科285例接受了LRP治疗的男性患者的临床资料。其中37例患者术前已接受过TURP治疗(TURP组),另外选取37例没有接受过TURP的患者与之配对(对照组)。运用相关统计学方法比较两组患者在围手术期并发症、外科手术、肿瘤及尿控等方面的差异。结果两组患者在年龄、体质指数、血清前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)水平以及术前和术后Gleason评分等方面无统计学差异。TURP组与对照组相比患者出血量较多[(555.4±238.4)vs.(237±111.3)mL,P<0.05]、手术时间较长[(256.7±65.3)vs.(215.2±62.3)min,P<0.05]、输血概率大(5.4%vs.0.0%,P<0.05)、并发症发生率较高(43.2%vs.13.5%,P<0.05)。TURP组的手术阳性切缘率与对照组相比(35.1%vs.24.3%)差异无统计学意义(P=0.353)。手术后12个月的尿控率两组相似,但在3个月时TURP组的尿控率较低(40.5%vs.70.2%)。在平均随访36.5个月后,TURP组和对照组分别有10.8%和8.1%的患者出现生化复发,差异无统计学意义。结论TURP后LRP需要更长的手术时间、失血更多、并发症发生率更高和更差的短期尿控,但两组患者远期肿瘤切除效果及远期尿控没有差异,所以TURP后行LRP的疗效是安全可靠的。     

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.     

Radical prostatectomy with positive surgical margins: how are patients managed?

There are four mini‐reviews in this section, with a very strong emphasis on urological oncology; two on prostate cancer and two on renal cancer. The spread of countries from which they came reflects the international authorship of contributors to the Journal: the UK, Canada, USA and Germany respectively.     

Urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy (prospective urodynamic study)

AIMS: During this prospective study we analyzed the effects of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) on bladder and sphincter function by comparing preoperative and postoperative urodynamic data. The aim of the study was to determine the reason for urinary incontinence after RRP and explain why one group of patients will be immediately continent after catheter removal, while others need some time to reach complete continence. METHODS: Urodynamic examination was performed in 63 patients 3-7 days before and 2 months after surgery. RESULTS: Forty-three (68.2%) and 53 (84.1%) patients regained continence at 2 and 9 months following RRP, respectively. Ten patients (15.9%) were immediately continent after catheter removal. Urodynamic stress incontinence was detected in 18 (28.6%), and detrusor overactivity incontinence in 2 (3.2%) patients 2 months after surgery. The amplitude of preoperative maximal voluntary sphincteric contractions was significantly higher in the postoperative continent group (125 vs. 96.5 cmH(2)O, P < 0.0001). The patients who were immediately continent following catheter removal had no lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and urodynamic abnormality preoperatively, and they had significantly higher preoperative and postoperative maximum urethral closure pressure (at rest and during voluntary sphincter contraction) than those who became continent later on. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the main cause of incontinence after RRP is sphincteric weakness. In the continent group, those who became immediately continent had significantly higher maximum urethral closure pressure values at rest and at voluntary sphincteric contraction even before the surgery.     

The prevalence and nature of orgasmic dysfunction after radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE: To define the type of orgasmic dysfunction in men after radical prostatectomy (RP), as absence of orgasm and orgasmic pain are recognized complaints, and changes in orgasm may lead to significant sexual dissatisfaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using an unvalidated questionnaire, demographic, erectile function and orgasmic function questions were answered by 239 patients who had previously undergone a retropubic RP. RESULTS: Of the 239 patients, 22% had no change in orgasm intensity, 37% reported a complete absence of orgasm, 37% had decreased orgasm intensity and 4% reported a more intense orgasm after RP than before. Pain during orgasm (dysorgasmia) occurred in 14% of the patients; in these respondents the pain reportedly occurred always (with every orgasm) in 33%, frequently in 13%, occasionally in 35%, and rarely in 19%. Most patients (55%) had orgasm-associated pain for <1 min. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that orgasmic functional changes are relatively common after RP and are worth considering by clinicians and researchers.     

Robot-assisted versus three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 12-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial

Objectives

To compare functional and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) to three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D-LRP) at 12 months after surgery.

Patients and methods

Prospective randomised single-centre study of 145 consecutive men referred to radical prostatectomy in a tertiary referral centre in Finland. Patients were randomised 1:1 to the RALP (N = 75) and 3D-LRP (N = 70) groups. The primary outcome was urinary continence evaluated with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version (EPIC-26) incontinence domain score at 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the use of protective pads at 12 months after surgery, EPIC-26 domain scores of irritative/obstructive, bowel, sexual and hormonal symptoms, positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Complication frequency within the 3-month period after surgery was evaluated according to Clavien–Dindo classification. Statistical significance between groups was analysed using Mann–Whitney, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. The trial was terminated after interim analysis based on no statistically significant difference in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores. Altogether 145 patients of the target accrual of 280 patients were recruited.

Results

Postoperative continence at 12 months after surgery according to the EPIC-26 incontinence domain was 79.25 in both groups (P = 0.4). Between group difference was −5.8 (95% confidence interval –15.2 to 3.6). There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of PSM or BCR between the two surgical modality groups.

Conclusion

We were unable to demonstrate a difference between the RALP and 3D-LRP groups for functional and oncological outcomes at 12 months after 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.