Meta-analysis of Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

Perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches are two common modalities in single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), but differences in safety and efficacy between the two remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin of extraperitoneal with transperitoneal approaches SP-RARP.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, this study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42023409667). We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published up to February 2023. Stata 15.1 software was used to analyze and calculate the risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD).

RESULTS

A total of five studies, including 833 participants, were included in this study. The SP-TPRP group is superior to the SP-EPRP group in intraoperative blood loss (WMD: - 43.92, 95% CI - 69.81, - 18.04; p = 0.001), the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications (RR: 0.55, 95% CI - 0.31, 0.99; p = 0.04), and postoperative continence recovery (RR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.05, 1.45; p = 0.04). Conversely, the hospitalization stays (WMD: 7.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.65, 15.1; p = 0.03) for the SP-EPRP group was shorter than that of the SP-TPRP group. However, there was no significant difference in operation time, postoperative pain score, total incidence of postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that both extraperitoneal and extraperitoneal SP-RARP approaches are safe and effective. SP-TPRP is superior to SP-EPRP in postoperative blood loss, the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications, and postoperative continence recovery, but it is accompanied by longer hospital stays.

The application of Foley catheter traction technique in extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

To describe a technique to improve exposure of prostate during extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (EP-RARP).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From March 2020 to June 2022, a total of 41 patients with prior intra-abdominal surgery underwent EP-RARP. Twenty-three patients improved exposure by traction of prostate through urinary catheter. The catheter traction prostatectomy (CTP) group was compared with the standard prostatectomy (SP) group using three robotic arms (18 patients) in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, positive surgical margin rate, the recovery rate of urinary continence, Gleason score and postoperative hospital stays. Differences were considered significant when P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The operative time was lower in the CTP group (109.63 min vs. 143.20 min; P < 0.001). EBL in the CTP group was 178.26 ± 30.70 mL, and in the standard prostatectomy group, it was 347.78 ± 53.53 mL (P < 0.001). No significant differences with regard to postoperative hospital stay, recovery rate of urinary continence, catheterization time and positive surgical margin were observed between both groups. No intraoperative complications occurred in all the patients. After 6 months of follow-up, the Post-op Detectable prostate specific antigen was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

CTP is a feasible, safe, and valid procedure in EP-RARP. Application of CTP improved the exposure of prostate, reduced operative time and blood loss in comparison with the conventional procedure.

Complications of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: A single high-volume center experience

Introduction

The role of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) has been debated over the years, but it appears safe and effective in selected patients. While the outcomes of transperitoneal RARP for high-risk PCa have been already widely investigated, data on the extraperitoneal approach are scarcely available. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate intra- and postoperative complications in a series of patients with high-risk PCa treated by extraperitoneal RARP (eRARP) and pelvic lymph node dissection. The secondary aim is to report oncological and functional outcomes.

Methods

Data of patients who underwent eRARP for high-risk PCa were prospectively collected from January 2013 to September 2021. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded, as also perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were classified by employing Intraoperative Adverse Incident Classification by the European Association of Urology and the Clavien–Dindo classification, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate a potential association between clinical and pathological features and the risk of complications.

Results

A total of 108 patients were included. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss were 183.5 ± 44 min and 115.2 ± 72.4 mL, respectively. Only two intraoperative complications were recorded, both grade 3. Early complications were recorded in 15 patients, of which 14 were of minor grade, and 1 was grade IIIa. Late complications were diagnosed in four patients, all of grade III. Body mass index (BMI) &gt; 30 kg/m2, Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) &gt; 20 ng/mL, PSA density &gt;0.15 ng/mL2, and pN1 significantly correlated with a higher rate of overall postoperative complications. Moreover, BMI &gt;30 kg/m2, PSA &gt;20 ng/mL, and pN1 significantly correlated with a higher rate of early complications, while PSA &gt;20 ng/mL, prostate volume &lt;30 mL, and pT3 were significantly associated with a higher risk of late complications. In multivariate regression analysis, PSA &gt;20 ng/mL significantly correlated with overall postoperative complications, while PSA &gt; 20 and pN1 correlated with early complications. Urinary continence and sexual potency were restored in 49.1%, 66.7%, and 79.6% of patients and in 19.1%, 29.9%, and 36.2% of patients at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively.

Conclusions

eRARP with pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with high-risk PCa is a feasible and safe technique, resulting in only a few intra- and postoperative complications, mostly of low grade.

Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis

We aim to evaluate the differences in peri-operative characteristics, surgical complications, and oncological and functional control between the extraperitoneal RARP (EP-RARP) and transperitoneal RARP (TP-RARP). A comprehensive database search was performed up to March 2021 for eligible studies comparing outcomes between EP-RARP versus TP-RARP. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed to control for heterogeneity and risk of bias. A total of 16 studies were included with 3897 patients, including 2201 (56.5%) EP-RARPs and 1696 (43.5%) TP-RARPs. When compared to TP-RARP, EP-RARP offers faster operative time (MD - 14.4 min; 95% CI - 26.3, - 2.3), decreased length of post-operative stay (MD - 0.9 days, 95% CI - 1.3, - 0.4), and decreased rates of post-operative ileus (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.7) and inguinal hernia formation (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.5). There were no significant differences in total complications, estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins, or continence at 6 months. In this review, EP-RARP delivered similar oncological and functional outcomes, while also offering faster operative time, decreased length of post-operative stay, and decreased rates of post-operative ileus and inguinal hernia formation when compared to TP-RARP. These findings provide evidence-based data for surgical approach optimization and prompts future research to examine whether these findings hold true with recent advances in single-port RARP and outpatient RARP.

Recommendations on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a Brazilian experts' consensus

Radical prostatectomy is a commonly adopted treatment for localized/locally advanced prostate cancer in men with a life expectancy of ten years or more. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is comparable to open radical prostatectomy on cancer control and complication rates; however, new evidence suggests that RARP may have better functional outcomes, especially with respect to urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Some of the surgical steps of RARP are not adequately described in published literature and, as such, may have an impact on the final outcomes of the procedure. We organized a Brazilian experts' panel to evaluate best practices in RARP. The confection of the recommendations broadly involved: selection of the experts; establishment of working groups; systematic review of the literature and elaboration of a questionnaire; and construction of the final text with the approval of all participants. The participants reviewed the publications in English from December 2019 to February 2020. A one-round Delphi technique was employed in 188 questions. Five reviewers worked on the final recommendations using consensual and non-consensual questions. We found 59.9% of questions with greater than 70% agreement that were considered consensual. Non-consensual questions were reported according to the responses. The recommendations were based on evidence-based literature and individual perceptions adapted to the Brazilian reality, although some issues remain controversial. We believe that these recommendations may help urologists involved in RARP and hope that future discussions on this surgical procedure may evolve over the ensuing years.

Review of optimal techniques for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has been rapidly adopted and is now the standard of care in the surgical management of prostate cancer. Since the initial description in 2001, the technique has evolved to optimize oncological functional outcomes. Herein, we review key techniques for the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

With the current influx of new technology such as focal therapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy and prostate-sparing treatments, there is greater emphasis on maximizing outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. The evidence-based techniques of optimizing oncological outcomes including the lymph node dissection and improving cancer control through minimizing positive surgical margins are reviewed. Improvements in functional recovery has also been seen with technical modifications such as nerve sparing, preservation of the urethral support structures and the bladder neck and the urethra-vesical reconstruction.

SUMMARY

Robotic prostatectomy has demonstrated adequate long-term oncologic success and satisfactory functional recovery. As technology and techniques in robotic-assisted surgery evolve, surgeons will continue to optimize techniques to maximize functional outcome recovery and cancer control. Further studies are actively being conducted to provide level one evidence in multiple aspects of the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing in radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the intrafascial and interfascial nerve sparing (ITR-NS and ITE-NS) radical prostatectomy. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies. Meta-analysis with random-effects model was performed. Six comparative trials were selected and embraced in this research, including one randomized controlled trial, three prospective comparative trials, and two retrospective comparative trials. With regard to perioperative parameters, no significant association of operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, duration of catheterization, and hospital stay existed between ITR-NS and ITE-NS. With respect to the functional results, ITR-NS had advantages in terms of both continence and potency recovery compared with ITE-NS. In reference to the oncologic results, the ITR-NS showed lower overall positive surgical margin (PSM) compared with ITE-NS but pT2 PSM and biochemical recurrence free rates were similar to the two surgical types. This study demonstrates that ITR-NS has better continence at 6 mo and 36 mo and better potency recovery at 6 mo and 12 mo postoperatively, regardless of the surgical technique. The cancer control of ITR-NS was also better than that of ITE-NS. This may be explained by the fact that patients in ITE-NS group present higher risk cancer than patients in ITR-NS group.

Rate of Symptomatic Lymphocele Formation After Extraperitoneal vs Transperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Bilateral Pelvic Lymphadenectomy

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

With the peritoneum acting as a natural surface for lymphatic reabsorption, transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (tRARP) is thought to be associated with a lower incidence of symptomatic lymphoceles (SLs) compared with its extraperitoneal counterpart (eRARP) when bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection (BPLND) is performed. In this study, we aim to determine if there is a difference in SL formation and characteristics between the two approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who underwent eRARP or tRARP and BPLND by a single surgeon at a tertiary care academic center from July 1, 2003, to May 31, 2016. Patients with a history of prior pelvic radiotherapy, concomitant inguinal hernia repair, RARP without BPLND, or nonadenocarcinoma of the prostate were excluded. The resulting eRARP and tRARP groups were propensity matched for age, body mass index (BMI), American Association of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, D'Amico risk classification, and pathological lymph node (LN) count.

RESULTS

A total of 3183 RARPs were performed during this time period. After applying exclusion criteria and propensity score matching, 671 patients remained in each group. No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups with regard to age, BMI, ASA, pre-RARP prostate-specific antigen, D'Amico risk classification, biopsy and pathological Gleason sum score, pathological T stage, or margin status. The tRARP group had a higher clinical T stage (p = 0.0015), length of stay (LOS; p = 0.005), pathological N stage (4.92% vs 1.36%, p = 0.0002), and high total LN count (7.22 ± 5.54 vs 5.78 ± 4.18 LNs, p < 0.0001). The eRARP group had higher operating room times (197.4 ± 48.96 minutes vs 192.2 ± 44.12 minutes, p = 0.04) and estimated blood loss (218.4 ± 152.0 mL vs 179.9 ± 119.4 mL, p < 0.0001). No differences were noted in the frequency of SL formation [eRARP: 19/671 (2.83%) vs tRARP: 10/671 (1.49%), p = 0.09] or any clinical characteristics of the SL. Logistic regression analysis showed no effect of LN count (p = 0.071), pathological N stage (p = 0.111), or both combined (p = 0.085) on SL formation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort, the rate and clinical characteristics of SL were similar among patients treated with eRARP or tRARP and BPLND. The low event rate of SL in each group and trends favoring higher SL with LN yield and pN1 disease in the tRAPR group may deem the study underpowered to make definitive conclusions.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Inguinal Hernia Repair at the Time of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

Abdominal straining associated with voiding dysfunction or constipation has traditionally been associated with the development of abdominal wall hernias. Thus, classic general surgery dictum recommends that any coexistent bladder outlet obstruction should be addressed by the urologist before patients undergo surgical repair of a hernia. While organ-confined prostate cancer is usually not associated with the development of lower urinary tract symptoms, a modest proportion of patients treated with radical prostatectomy may have coexisting benign prostatic hyperplasia with elevated symptom scores and hernias may be incidentally detected at the time of surgery. Furthermore, dissection of the space of Retzius during retropubic or minimally invasive prostatectomy may result exposure of abdominal wall defects which may have been present, but asymptomatic if plugged with preperitoneal fat. Herein we examine the literature regarding the incidence of postoperative inguinal hernias after prostatectomy, review potential risk factors which could aid in preoperative patient identification, and discuss the published experience regarding concurrent hernia repair at the time of open or minimally invasive radical prostatectomy.

Robot-assisted Versus Standard Laparoscopy for Simple Prostatectomy: Multicenter Comparative Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To report a comparative analysis of laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP) vs robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive cases of LSP and RASP done between 2003 and 2014 at 3 participating institutions were included in this retrospective analysis. The effectiveness of the two procedures was determined by performing a paired analysis of main functional and surgical outcomes. A multivariate analysis was also conducted to determine the factors predictive of "trifecta" outcome (combination of International Prostate Symptom Score <8, Qmax > 15 mL/second, and no perioperative complications).

RESULTS

A total of 319 patients underwent minimally invasive simple prostatectomy at the participating institutions over the study period. Total prostate volume was larger in the RASP group (median 118.5 mL vs 109 mL, P = .02). Median estimated blood loss tended to be higher for LSP (300 mL vs 350 mL, P = .07). There was no difference in terms of catheterization time (P = .3) and hospital stay (P = .42). A higher rate of overall postoperative complications was recorded in the RASP group (17.7% vs 5.3%), but rate of major complications was not significantly different between the two techniques (2.3 vs 2.1, P = .6). Subjective and objective parameters significantly improved for both LSP and RASP. On multivariable analysis, only two factors were associated with likelihood of obtaining a favorable (trifecta) outcome: age (odds ratio: 0.94; P = .03) and body mass index (odds ratio: 0.84; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Both LSP and RASP can be regarded as safe and effective minimally invasive surgical treatments for bladder outlet obstruction due to large prostate glands.

Outcomes of Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the Morbidly Obese: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of obese patients (body mass index [BMI] >30 kg/m(2)]) with localized prostate cancer are presenting as candidates for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), which can be carried out using the transperitoneal or the extraperitoneal (EP) approach. Morbidly obese (BMI >40 kg/m(2)) patients present as an especially challenging surgical cohort. We sought to evaluate the perioperative and pathologic outcomes associated with EP-RARP in morbidly obese men.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved study, our prospectively collected database (Cancer Information Systems [CAISIS]) was reviewed. One thousand six hundred sixty-three patients underwent EP-RARP for localized prostate cancer at our institution between July 2003 and December 2013 by a single surgeon. Forty patients were considered morbidly obese. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed using multivariate analysis incorporating 10 covariates to identify the comparable group of patients with a BMI of >40 kg/m(2) and <40 kg/m(2).

RESULTS

Apart from BMI, the two groups were matched (all p-values >0.05). Despite a higher total operating time and estimated blood loss (EBL) in the morbidly obese (238 vs 176 minutes, p<0.0001, and 235 vs 192 mL, p=0.003, respectively), there were no differences in the ability to perform nerve-sparing or pelvic lymphadenectomy, or the length of stay. While the morbidly obese had a higher rate of harboring more aggressive disease on final pathology (pT3 rates, 27.5 vs 7.5%, respectively), there were no differences in other postoperative pathologic parameters, such as prostate specimen weight, positive surgical margin status, and Gleason score sum. Moreover, there were no differences in intra- or postoperative complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The morbidly obese cohort harbored more aggressive disease with the difference in the proportion of pathologic T3 disease statistically significant. Apart from increased total operating time and EBL in the morbid obese, EP-RARP leads to comparable perioperative and pathologic outcomes to the nonmorbidly obese. Consideration should be given to added operating room time when operating on the morbidly obese.