Comparison of Oncologic Outcomes and Complications According to Surgical Approach to Radical Prostatectomy: Special Focus on the Perineal Approach

Comparison of oncological and functional results of robotic and open perineal radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the functional and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent open perineal radical prostatectomy (OPP) and robotic perineal radical prostatectomy (RPP) for prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The data of patients who underwent OPP and RPP from June 2016 to February 2019 due to localized PCa were analyzed. Demographic characteristics, perioperative data and oncological results of the patients were recorded. In addition, the incontinence status of the patients immediately after catheter removal and at the 3rd, 6th, and 12th months were compared. Potency status was evaluated among the patients with preoperative potency, and 12th month potency status was compared.

RESULTS

A total of 135 patients were included, of whom 58 (43%) were in the OPP group and 77 (57%) were in the RPP group. The operation time was statistically significantly shorter in the OPP group (83.90 ± 15.48 vs. 110.88 ± 28.10 min, p = 0.001). The amount of bleeding was significantly lower in the RPP group (59.51 ± 22.04 vs. 74.06 ± 17.66, p = 0.002). The continence rates evaluated at the early period, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months were 40.3%, 80.5%, 87.0%, and 90.9%, respectively, for the RPP group and 36.2%, 70.7%, 86.2%, and 89.7%, for the OPP group, indicating no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the 12th month rates of postoperative potency according to the surgical technique (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although differences were observed between the OPP and RPP techniques in terms of perioperative parameters, oncological and functional results were similar.

Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

The aim of this study is to compare the functional, oncological, and complication outcomes of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy (PeRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) operations. Patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) between October 2018 and June 2020 for localized prostate cancer (N0, < T3) were retrospectively screened. After the exclusion criteria, 56 patients who underwent PeRP and 67 patients who underwent RARP remained in the study. Demographic, perioperative, and postoperative data were collected. In functional outcomes, continence and potency status were compared at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The mean age of the patients was 61.3 ± 5.9 years in the PeRP group and 62.2 ± 5.7 years in the RARP group. No statistically significant differences were present between preoperative and postoperative values. Among the perioperative findings, the mean operation time was 90.4 ± 11.2 min for the PeRP group and 114.6 ± 14.7 min for the RARP group. The operation time was shorter in the PeRP group. The average hospital stay was 2 ± 0.6 days in the PeRP group and 2.3 ± 0.5 days in the RARP group. It was significantly shorter in the PeRP group. There is no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the oncological and functional results. PeRP is a surgical procedure safe in low-risk patients with medium-risk prostate cancer (PCa) who do not require lymph-node dissection. Moreover, PeRP minimizes the difficulties of perineal surgery.

Indications for nerve-sparing surgery for radical prostatectomy: Results from a single-center study

Purpose

To explore the clinical indications of using the nerve-sparing technique in radical prostatectomy.

Patients and methods

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical and pathological data of 101 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) at our institution. Twenty-five patients underwent open surgery, and 76 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. The biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate was analyzed by the method of Kaplan–Meier. The distance between the ipsilateral neurovascular bundles (NVBs) and foci of prostate tumor (N-T distance) was measured in postoperative specimens. We defined the N-T distance >2 mm as the threshold to perform nerve-sparing (NS) in RP. Through logistic regression analysis, we determined the preoperative clinical indications for the nerve-sparing technique in RP.

Results

The average BCR-free survival time was 53.2 months in these 101 patients with RP, with the 3- and 5-year BCR-free rates being 87.9% and 85.8%, respectively. The N-T distance was measured in 184 prostate sides from postoperative specimens of 101 patients. Univariate analysis showed that the percent of side-specific biopsy cores with cancer (≥1/3), maximum tumor length in biopsy core (≥5 mm), average percent involvement of each positive core (≥50%), PI-RADS score, and prostate MP-MRI imaging (extra-capsular extension) were associated with the N-T distance (p < 0.003). Furthermore, the percent of side-specific biopsy cores with cancer (≥1/3) (OR = 4.11, p = 0.0047) and prostate MP-MRI imaging (extra-capsular extension) (OR = 3.92, p = 0.0061) were found to be statistically significant independent predictors of the N-T distance in multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

The clinical indications of nerve-sparing RP were <1/3 side-specific biopsy cores with cancer and no extra-capsular extension by prostate MP-MRI examination.

Comparison of oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes between radical retropubic and radical perineal prostatectomy: A multi-institutional study

Introduction:

To investigate the safety, oncologic, surgical, and functional outcomes of RPP and RRP for localized prostate cancer (Pca), especially focusing on RPP.

Materials and methods:

From March 2005 to January 2021, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 685 patients undergoing RPP ( n = 320) or RRP ( n = 365) for localized Pca. Surgical and functional outcomes, and complications were compared. Oncological outcomes were also compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

Results:

A higher biochemical recurrence rate were noted in RRP than in RPP group (28.8% vs 21.6%, respectively; p = 0.03). A local recurrence was detected in a few numbers of patients (4.4%) with no statistically significant differences by surgical groups ( p = 0.71). No significant differences were observed in the cancer-specific survival and the overall survival according to the surgical approach. Positive surgical margins were similar in the two techniques. In comparison to RRP, patients undergoing RPP have less postoperative pain, decreased transfusion rate, and less catheterization time. Complete continence was achieved in 96.9% of the RPP group at 18 and 24 months versus 91.8% and 92.3% in the RRP group at 18 and 24 months, respectively ( p = 0.005 and p = 0.01, respectively). At 18 months of follow-up, the nerve-sparing technique was performed equally between the two groups, the mean of erectile function domain improved more in RPP than RRP (12.71 vs 10.42 respectively, p < 0.001). Medical and surgical complication rates were higher for RRP than RPP.

Conclusions:

RPP showed acceptable oncologic outcomes and excellent functional outcomes when compared to RRP.

Transition from open to robotically assisted approach on radical prostatectomies in Iceland. A nationwide, population-based study

OBJECTIVES

In January 2015, radical prostatectomies (RPs) in Iceland changed almost entirely from being performed as open (ORP) to robotically assisted (RARP). This study assesses early surgical and short-term oncological outcome after ORP and RARP and evaluates the safety of transition between the two surgical techniques.

METHODS

The study population involved 160/163 (98%) of all radical prostatectomies performed in Iceland between January 2013 and April 2016. Data on patients was collected retrospectively from medical records. Early surgical and short-term oncological outcomes were compared between the two surgical techniques.

RESULTS

The ORP and RARP cohorts were comparable with respect to all clinical and pathological variables, except for median prostate volume, which was 45 mL in the ORP cohort and 37 mL in the RARP cohort (p = 0.03). Intraoperative blood loss was higher, hospital stay longer, catheterization time longer, and risk of complications within 30 days of surgery higher after ORP than RARP (p < 0.01). The operative time, positive surgical margin rate and recurrence free survival, within two years, was comparable between the two surgical techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The transition from ORP to RARP in Iceland was safe and resulted in improved early surgical outcome. However, no conclusion can be drawn from this study regarding oncological outcome, due to short follow up and a small sample size.

Robotic radical perineal prostatectomy: tradition and evolution in the robotic era

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an updated review of robotic radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP) with emphasis on the recent advances in terms of surgical technique, outcomes, and new robotic platforms.

RECENT FINDING

The technological innovations in the urological field have been applied to radical prostatectomy with the aim of preserving important anatomical structures and reduce patients' morbidity and mortality. In recent years, robotic surgery contributed to resurge radical perineal prostatectomy. In 2014, the Cleveland Clinic group was the first to demonstrate the utility of a robotic approach in RPP. To date, the majority of the reported studies showed that r-RPP has noninferior perioperative, short-term oncological, and functional outcomes compared with the traditional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Given these benefits, r-RPP is a promising approach in selected patients, such as obese ones. Moreover, robotic perineal pelvic lymph node dissection performed through the same incision of r-RPP and the new Single-Port (SP) Robotic System represent further steps towards the overcoming of some intrinsic limitation of this surgical approach making this technique suitable for a larger number of patients with prostatic cancer.

SUMMARY

Overall, r-RPP represents a reliable and effective novel surgical technique. However, more studies with long-term follow-up are needed to clarify the advantages over RARP.

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.

RESULTS

We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.

Perineoscopic radical prostatectomy: A novel surgical technique for the treatment of prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to discuss the technical details of perineoscopic radical prostatectomy (perineoscopic-RP), which we performed for the first time as a surgical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa), and to present the outcomes of three patients who underwent this procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Using a robotic scope as an optical system, we performed perineoscopic-RP in 3 patients in March 2018. Technical details of the procedure have been explained step-by-step in this article. Preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data of all the patients was analyzed.

RESULTS

Perineoscopic-RP was completed successfully without the need to convert to other approaches and/or techniques in all three patients. The patients were in a low-risk group for PCa. The mean time that elapsed to reach the prostate apex was 50±3.6 minutes, including the time required to install the optic and retractor system. The mean total operative time was 144.3±8.4 minutes. No intraoperative or postoperative complications were observed. Surgical margins were negative in all patients. Incontinence was observed in 2 patients after the removal of the Foley catheter. All patients achieved complete continence in the 3^rd month during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This technique, of which we presented the initial results in this article, can be successfully performed as a surgical intervention method for PCa. Prospective and comparative studies with larger patient series are required to place this method in routine practice.

Comparison of longitudinal health-related quality-of-life outcomes between anterior and posterior surgical approaches to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Increasingly, studies have explored health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Nevertheless, no study has compared differences between anterior and posterior surgical approaches. The aim of this study is to assess differences of HRQOL following these two surgical approaches. From January 2012 to September 2017, 653 patients underwent RARP at our institution. We included patients who underwent operations by three experienced surgeons with interchangeability of role as console operator, and who could evaluate preoperatively the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) score. Patients treated with neoadjuvant hormonal therapy were excluded. HRQOL was assessed using the EPIC score, and the questionnaire was administered at 6 timepoints: the baseline survey was conducted within 3 months before the surgery, and follow-up surveys were conducted at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. We defined the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) as half the standard deviation of the baseline score for each domain. A total of 201 patients were included in this retrospective study. Of these, 146 patients underwent RARP using an anterior surgical approach and 55 patients underwent a posterior approach. The clinical characteristics had no significant differences except for median prostate volume between the anterior and posterior groups (27 ml vs 29 ml, p = 0.049). There were no significant differences between the two groups in score decline beyond the MCID in any domain at any timepoint. Our study demonstrates no significant differences in HRQOL between anterior and posterior surgical approaches to RARP.

Infectious Complications of Conventional Laparoscopic vs Robotic Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that using minimally invasive surgical techniques (conventional laparoscopy or robotic) for prostatectomy is associated with lower perioperative complication rates compared with open radical retropubic prostatectomy. However, differences in infectious complications between these minimally invasive approaches are not well characterized. To study this further, we performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of the infectious complications of prostatectomy, comparing robotic prostatectomy (RP) with conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy (LP).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, CDSR, and EMBASE through September 2018 for studies evaluating minimally invasive prostatectomy and infectious complications. We employed random-effect models to obtain pooled odds ratio (pOR) estimates. Heterogeneity was evaluated with I² estimation and the Cochran Q statistic. pORs were calculated separately based on the indication for prostatectomy.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included in the final review for the meta-analysis with 14,121 patients undergoing minimally invasive prostatectomy. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of infectious complication events between RP and LP (pOR 0.94; 95% CI 0.50, 1.76). When we performed a stratified analysis, similar results were found with no statistically significant difference in infectious complications comparing RP with LP among patients with prostate cancer (pOR 0.73; 95% CI 0.43, 1.24). We observed that infectious complications were nearly threefold higher with the robotic approach in earlier studies (published between 2007 and 2012, pOR 2.81; 95% CI 1.07, 7.39), but no significant difference was found in later studies (between 2013 and 2018, pOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.40, 1.57).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of infectious complications associated with RP was no different than that associated with conventional LP.

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.