Survival After Robotic-Assisted Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer: An Epidemiologic Study

A clinical evaluation of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in located prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a prevalent malignant tumor affecting the male reproductive system and there are mainly three widely accepted PCa surgery types in current clinical treatment: open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Here, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effect of RARP for PCa patients compared with ORP and LRP based on the context of PCa encompass two dimensions: oncological outcomes (biochemical recurrence (BCR) and positive surgical margin (PSM)) and functional outcomes (urinary continence and recovery of erectile function) in this network meta-analysis (NMA). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically searched in January 7, 2024. 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 72 non-RCTs were included. RARP displayed significant positive effect on lower BCR and better recovery of erectile function but no significant differences existed among three surgery types for PSM and urinary continence.

Disparities in access to robotic technology and perioperative outcomes among patients treated with radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Most radical prostatectomies are completed with robotic assistance. While studies have previously evaluated perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), this study investigates disparities in access and clinical outcomes of RARP.

STUDY DESIGN

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients who received radical prostatectomy for cancer between 2010 and 2017 with outcomes through 2018. RARP was compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Odds of receiving RARP were evaluated while adjusting for covariates. Overall survival was evaluated using a propensity-score matched cohort.

RESULTS

Overall, 354 752 patients were included with 297 676 (83.9%) receiving RARP. Patients who were non-Hispanic Black (82.8%) or Hispanic (81.3%) had lower rates of RARP than non-Hispanic White (84.0%) or Asian patients (87.7%, p < 0.001). Medicaid or uninsured patients were less likely to receive RARP (75.5%) compared to patients with Medicare or private insurance (84.4%, p < 0.001). Medicaid or uninsured status was associated with decreased odds of RARP in adjusted multivariable analysis (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.76). RARP was associated with decreased perioperative mortality and improved overall survival compared to ORP.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were underinsured were less likely to receive RARP. Improved access to RARP may lead to decreased disparities in perioperative outcomes for prostate cancer.

Less Severe Intra-Abdominal Infections in Robotic Surgery for Gastric Cancer Compared with Conventional Laparoscopic Surgery: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of robotic gastrectomy (RG) for gastric cancer (GC) on the incidence of postoperative complication is debatable and unclear.

METHODS

This study enrolled 200 patients with GC who were surgically treated and consisted of 100 RG and 100 laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) cases using an ultrasonic scalpel. The short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. These outcomes were compared using a 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matching analysis.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 76 cases in each group were well matched. Mean surgical time was significantly longer in the RG group than in the LG group (393 vs. 342 min, p < 0.005), whereas mean blood loss during surgery was significantly lower in the RG group than in the LG group (30.1 vs. 50.1 mL, p = 0.023). The median number of surgeons who attend the main part of the surgery was significantly less in the RG group than in the LG group (2.0 vs. 3.0, p = 0.01). The rate of severe intra-abdominal infectious complication was significantly lower in the RG group than in the LG group (0% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.014). The duration from surgery to adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly shorter in the RG group than in the LG group (29.6 ± 11.0 vs. 45.2 ± 27.8 days, p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

RG using an ultrasonic scalpel may be a viable alternative to LG because of the improvement in the rate of postoperative intra-abdominal infectious complications after curative surgery for GC.

Transperineal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with Si da Vinci surgical system: initial experience and description of technique

Background

Single-port robotic-assisted radical laparoscopic prostatectomy has emerged as a novel robotic-assisted radical laparoscopic prostatectomy in recent years, arousing wide attention. However, single-port robotic-assisted radical laparoscopic prostatectomy using Si da Vinci surgical system has been rarely reported, especially via the transperineal approach.

Methods

We retrospectively collected 9 cases of prostate cancer patients who underwent transperineal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (t-spPARP) using Si da Vinci surgical system in our center from May 2020 to June 2020. The operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, changes in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) 3 months after surgery, and urinary continence recovery 6 months after surgery were analyzed.

Results

No perioperative complications were recorded. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] operation time was 350 [150] min and the median [IQR] EBL was 300 [100] mL. PSA levels were less than 0.01 ng/mL at 3 months postoperatively in all cases (undetectable in 8 cases). All the 9 patients recovered their urinary continence 6 months after surgery and merely two patients required pads during the day.

Conclusions

t-spRARP was verified as a safe and feasible surgical alternative to treat patients with localized prostate cancer, especially for those whose prostate is small-volume or who had abdominal surgery history.

Robotic-assisted surgery for the treatment of urologic cancers: recent advances

INTRODUCTION

As the medical field is moving toward personalized and tailored approaches, we entered the era of precision surgery for the management of genitourinary cancers1. This is facilitated by the implementation of new technologies, among which robotic surgery stands out for the significant impact in the surgical field over the last two decades.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the latest evidence on robotic surgery for the treatment of urologic cancers, including prostate, kidney, bladder, testis, and penile cancer. Functional and oncologic outcomes, new surgical techniques, new imaging modalities, and new robotic platforms are discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Robotic surgery had a growing role in the management of genitourinary cancers over the past 10 years. Despite a lack of high-quality evidence comparing the effectiveness of robotic to open surgery, the robotic approach allowed a larger adoption of a minimally invasive surgical approach, translating into lower surgical morbidity and shorter hospital stay. New robotic platforms might allow to explore novel surgical approaches, and new technologies might facilitate surgical navigation and intraoperative identification of anatomical structures, allowing a more tailored and precise surgery. It is an exciting time for robotic surgery, and upcoming technological advances will offer better outcomes to urologic cancer patients.

Propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia is associated with better survival than desflurane anesthesia in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Background

Previous researches have shown that anesthetic techniques may influence the patients’ outcomes after cancer surgery. Here, we studied the relationship between the type of anesthetic techniques and patients’ outcomes following elective robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who received elective, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were grouped according to the anesthesia they received, namely desflurane or propofol. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was conducted, and survival curves were presented from the date of surgery to death. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to compare hazard ratios for death after propensity matching. Subgroup analyses were performed for tumor-node-metastasis stage and disease progression. The primary outcome was overall survival, and the secondary outcome was postoperative biochemical recurrence.

Results

A total of 365 patients (24 deaths, 7.0%) under desflurane anesthesia, and 266 patients (2 deaths, 1.0%) under propofol anesthesia were included. The all-cause mortality rate was significantly lower in the propofol anesthesia than in the desflurane anesthesia during follow-up (P = 0.001). Two hundred sixty-four patients remained in each group after propensity matching. The propofol anesthesia was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.03–0.48; P = 0.003) in the matched analysis. Subgroup analyses showed that patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative biochemical recurrence than those under desflurane (hazard ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.05–0.91; P = 0.038) in the matched analysis.

Conclusions

Propofol anesthesia was associated with improved overall survival in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with desflurane anesthesia. In addition, patients under propofol anesthesia had less postoperative biochemical recurrence.