Retropubic versus perineal radical prostatectomy in early prostate cancer: eight-year experience

Open retropubic radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common treatment choice for localized prostate cancer. While there is increasing utilisation of robotic assisted RP in some centres, open RP (ORP) remains well established and commonly performed in many parts of the world. The goals of modern ORP are to remove the prostate en-bloc with negative surgical margins, while minimising blood loss and preserving urinary continence and erectile function. We present a technical review of ORP incorporating contemporary techniques for control of the deep venous complex, additional haemostatic measures, nerve-sparing and vesicourethral reconstruction.

The evolution and resurgence of perineal prostatectomy in the robotic surgical era

PURPOSE

To review the recent advances in terms of surgical technique and new robotic platforms applied to radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP).

METHODS

A literature review was performed focusing on original articles on perineal prostatectomy searching via Medline/Pubmed and Embase. The entire spectrum was covered such as development of surgical technique including pelvic lymphadenectomy, adoption of novel surgical platforms, learning curve and future directions.

RESULTS

Surgical removal of the prostate plays a significant role on the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa). RPP was the first surgical approach described for radical prostatectomy. This technique declined in popularity secondary to the development of the retropubic approach. Recently, the appearance of novel robotic technology has generated renewed interest in the perineal approach.

CONCLUSION

There has been a recent resurgence on the interest of radical perineal prostatectomy for the treatment of localized PCa driven by the advent of new robotic surgical technologies into the field. Future studies are needed to better determine the learning curve of the perineal approach and its current role in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases

Objective

Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly evolving and preferred to reduce surgical induced morbidity and mortality and minimize the challenges of surgical techniques. Especially radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) includes some challenges like working in a deep and narrow space and challenging ergonomics for the surgeons. Because of these issues open RPP is still performed in experienced centers. In order to reduce these difficulties, robot- assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP) is developed. In this study, we report our first clinical results for r-RPP.

Material and methods

Between November 2016 and February 2017, 15 patients underwent r-RPP in our center. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was performed for all patients to exclude locally advanced disease. The patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and locally advanced prostate cancer were not chosen for r-RPP method. The patient was positioned in the exaggerated lithotomy with 15 degrees of Trendelenburg position. After incision and dissection of subcutaneous tissue, dissection was advanced to the margin of posterior recto-urethral muscle fibers. Then a GelPOINT^® device was placed and robotic system was docked.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 60.2±7.8 years. The mean body mass index of the patients was 28.8±1.9 kg/m². Four patients had previous major abdominal surgeries. Preoperative mean prostate specific antigen value was 7.3±2.4 ng/mL. The mean prostate volume was 40.8±12.4 cc. Mean perineal dissection time was 60±10.1 minutes. Mean console time and total operation time was 95±11.3 and 167±37.4 minutes, respectively. The mean time of postoperative catheterization was 8.3±1.7 days. Early continence rate was 40% after urethral catheter removal and at 3rd month of the surgery mean continence rate was 94% for all patients.

Conclusion

We demonstrate that r-RPP is a feasible and efficient method. But still this method needs for further studies in this area.

Descriptive Technique and Initial Results for Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

To minimize technical challenges of radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP), we conceived and applied the robotic approach to this technique in an aim to improve surgical applicability of RPP. Radical prostatectomy via the perineal route, avoiding the intra-abdominal cavity, has been shown to be oncologically safe, with excellent functional outcomes and a short hospital stay. We report our initial results with this novel approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed the procedure in 4 patients. With the patient in the exaggerated lithotomy position, following a 3 cm perineal incision, the initial perineal dissection using Belt's approach is performed, followed by single port placement and docking of the robot.

RESULTS

The median age for patients was 64 years (60-69). Two patients had no rectum because of the abdominoperineal resection due to inflammatory bowel diseases. One of the other 2 patients had a surgical history of aborted robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and 1 patient had no surgical history. There were no perioperative complications and the patients were discharged within 16-48 hours. Urethral catheter was removed within 10 days in 3 patients, and 3 weeks in 1 patient. Two patients were immediately continent when Foley was removed. The final pathology revealed focally positive margin in those 3 patients who had surgical histories and it was margin negative in the patient with native anatomy. All patients had undetectable prostate-specific antigen postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

RPP was successfully completed in 4 cases, applying a single port robotic perineal approach. Initial results are encouraging, with short hospital stay and minimal postoperative pain.

Current status of robotic surgery in Japan

The da Vinci S surgical system (Intuitive Surgical) was approved as a medical device in 2009 by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Robotic surgery has since been used in gastrointestinal, thoracic, gynecological, and urological surgeries. In April 2012, robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) was first approved for insurance coverage. Since then, RALP has been increasingly used, with more than 3,000 RALP procedures performed by March 2013. By July 2014, 183 institutions in Japan had installed the da Vinci surgical system. Other types of robotic surgeries are not widespread because they are not covered by public health insurance. Clinical trials using robotic partial nephrectomy and robotic gastrectomy for renal and gastric cancers, respectively, have recently begun as advanced medical treatments to evaluate health insurance coverage. These procedures must be evaluated for efficacy and safety before being covered by public health insurance. Other types of robotic surgery are being evaluated in clinical studies. There are several challenges in robotic surgery, including accreditation, training, efficacy, and cost. The largest issue is the cost-benefit balance. In this review, the current situation and a prospective view of robotic surgery in Japan are discussed.

Case for resurgence of radical perineal prostatecomy in Indian subcontinent

Introduction:

Radical perineal prostatectomy was the first surgery described for prostatic carcinoma (Young, 1904) but it lost its eminent status after Walsh's description in 1982 of anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy followed by the enthusiasm in laparoscopy and now robotics. It made resurgence after it was realized in early 1990s that the pelvic lymph node dissection is needed only in selected cases. Last decade witnessed over 80 publications addressing the results and advances in the perineal approach. Strangely, centres from the subcontinent have chosen to ignore this resurgence. We describe our early experience with the technique in 35 patients and present the case for its more widespread usage.

Patients and Methods:

Thirty five patients of clinically localized carcinoma prostate were operated by perineal route in our institution from December 2006 onwards. All patients had serum prostate specific antigen levels less than 10 ng/ml.

Results:

Operating time was 2 to 3.5 hours (mean 2.5 hours). Rectal injury occurred in three patients but was closed primarily in all and none required a colostomy. Mean duration of hospital stay was four days. The disease was organ confined in 25(71%). Positive margins were seen in 5(14%) patients. Biochemical recurrence occurred in 17% patients at one year. Seventy six percent patients had achieved continence at one year.

Conclusions:

As the world is taking note of radical perineal prostatectomy again, with a very small learning curve, minimal invasion and good oncological control urologists from Indian subcontinent should also embrace this procedure in view of the relative limited resources available.

Radical perineal prostatectomy - the contemporary resurgence of a genuinely minimally invasive procedure: Procedure outline. Comparison of the advantages, disadvantages, and outcomes of different surgical techniques of treating organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). A literature review with special focus on perineal prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

Surgery plays a central role in the management of organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). Four types of prostatectomy are currently practiced: perineal, retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted. The qualification criteria for all types are similar. Radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) was the first method introduced into clinical practice, however, it has been neglected in favor of other procedures. Its resurgence has been facilitated by a multitude of advantages. Unfortunately, nowadays most urologists are not familiar with the perineal approach though many centers have begun to implement it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This manuscript presents the technique of RPP used in the author's institution. It also reviews a vast body of literature on the four techniques of prostatectomy including their advantages and outcomes. The data was collected from the literature and medical databases.

CONCLUSION

RPP proves to be a very efficacious, cost-effective treatment option for localized PCa. The outcomes of RPP, as defined by continence, potency, and complication rate, are equivalent to those accomplished by other methods.

Contemporary radical prostatectomy

Purpose. Patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer have more surgical treatment options than in the past. This paper focuses on the procedures' oncological or functional outcomes and perioperative morbidities of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods. A MEDLINE/PubMed search of the literature on radical prostatectomy and other new management options was performed. Results. Compared to the open procedures, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has no confirmed significant difference in most literatures besides less blood loss and blood transfusion. Nerve sparing is a safe means of preserving potency on well-selected patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Positive surgical margin rates of radical prostatectomy affect the recurrence and survival of prostate cancer. The urinary and sexual function outcomes have been vastly improved. Neoadjuvant treatment only affects the rate of positive surgical margin. Adjuvant therapy can delay and reduce the risk of recurrence and improve the survival of the high risk prostate cancer. Conclusions. For the majority of patients with organ-confined prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy remains a most effective approach. Radical perineal prostatectomy remains a viable approach for patients with morbid obesity, prior pelvic surgery, or prior pelvic radiation. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become popular among surgeons but has not yet become the firmly established standard of care. Long-term data have confirmed the efficacy of radical retropubic prostatectomy with disease control rates and cancer-specific survival rates.

Erectile function recovery rate after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Erectile function recovery (EFR) rates after radical prostatectomy (RP) vary greatly based on a number of factors, such as erectile dysfunction (ED) definition, data acquisition means, time-point postsurgery, and population studied.

AIM

To conduct a meta-analysis of carefully selected reports from the available literature to define the EFR rate post-RP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

EFR rate after RP.

METHODS

An EMBASE and MEDLINE search was conducted for the time range 1985-2007. Articles were assessed blindly by strict inclusion criteria: report of EFR data post-RP, study population >or=50 patients, >or=1 year follow-up, nerve-sparing status declared, no presurgery ED, and no other prostate cancer therapy. Meta-analysis was conducted to determine the EFR rate and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 212 relevant studies were identified; only 22 (10%) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (9,965 RPs, EFR data: 4,983 subjects). Mean study population size: 226.5, standard deviation = 384.1 (range: 17-1,834). Overall EFR rate was 58%. Single center series publications (k = 19) reported a higher EFR rate compared with multicenter series publications (k = 3): 60% vs. 33%, RR = 1.82, P = 0.001. Studies reporting >or=18-month follow-up (k = 10) reported higher EFR rate vs. studies with <18-month follow-up (k = 12), 60% vs. 56%, RR = 1.07, P = 0.02. Open RP (k = 16) and laparoscopic RP (k = 4) had similar EFR (57% vs. 58%), while robot-assisted RP resulted in a higher EFR rate (k = 2), 73% compared with these other approaches, P = 0.001. Patients <60 years old had a higher EFR rate vs. patients >or=60 years, 77% vs. 61%, RR = 1.26, P = 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that most of the published literature does not meet strict criteria for reporting post-RP EFR. Single and multiple surgeon series have comparable EFR rates, but single center studies have a higher EFR. Younger men have higher EFR and no significant difference in EFR between ORP and LRP is evident.

The clinically-integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost

INTRODUCTION

Randomized controlled trials provide the best method of determining which of two comparable treatments is preferable. Unfortunately, contemporary randomized trials have become increasingly expensive, complex and burdened by regulation, so much so that many trials are of doubtful feasibility.

DISCUSSION

Here we present a proposal for a novel, streamlined approach to randomized trials: the "clinically-integrated randomized trial". The key aspect of our methodology is that the clinical experience of the patient and doctor is virtually indistinguishable whether or not the patient is randomized, primarily because outcome data are obtained from routine clinical data, or from short, web-based questionnaires. Integration of a randomized trial into routine clinical practice also implies that there should be an attempt to randomize every patient, a corollary of which is that eligibility criteria are minimized. The similar clinical experience of patients on- and off-study also entails that the marginal cost of putting an additional patient on trial is negligible. We propose examples of how the clinically-integrated randomized trial might be applied in four distinct areas of medicine: comparisons of surgical techniques, "me too" drugs, rare diseases and lifestyle interventions. Barriers to implementing clinically-integrated randomized trials are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The proposed clinically-integrated randomized trial may allow us to enlarge dramatically the number of clinical questions that can be addressed by randomization.