Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer

Modified Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for cases with anterior tumor: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes between a modified Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (mRS-RARP) technique and conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (Con-RARP) technique for cases with anterior prostate cancer (PCa), especially positive surgical margin (PSM) rates and urinary continence (UC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively included 193 mRS-RARP and 473 Con-RARP consecutively performed by a single surgeon for anterior PCa. Perioperative complications, pathology, and continence were compared after propensity score matching using 9 variables.

RESULTS

After matching (n = 193 per group), PSM were not significantly different in the two groups (16.1% in mRS-RARP group vs. 15.0% in Con-RARP group, p = 0.779). The UC at catheter removal and at 1-month was significantly higher in the mRS-RARP (24.9% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.001; 29.0% vs. 13.5%, p < 0.001, respectively), but not at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups (p = 0.261, 0.832, and 0.683, respectively).

CONCLUSION

mRS-RARP seems to be an oncologically safe approach for patients with anterior PCa. Compared with the conventional approach, mRS-RARP approach shows benefits in the short-term postoperative UC recovery.

Is It Safe to Switch from a Standard Anterior to Retzius-Sparing Approach in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy?

Background: Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) has been shown to lead to better outcomes regarding early continence compared to standard anterior RARP (SA-RARP). The goal of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of implementing RS-RARP in a tertiary center with experience in SA-RARP. Methods: From February 2020, all newly diagnosed non-metastatic prostate cancer patients for whom RARP was indicated were evaluated for RS-RARP. Data from the first 100 RS-RARP patients were prospectively collected and compared with data from the last 100 SA-RARP patients. Patients were evaluated for Clavien Dindo grade ≥3a complications, urinary continence after 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months, erectile function, positive surgical margins (PSMs) and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative complications at Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3a (SA-RARP: 6, RS-RARP: 4; p = 0.292). At all time points, significantly higher proportions of RS-RARP patients were continent (p < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative potency were observed (52% vs. 59%, respectively, p = 0.608). PSMs were more frequent in the RS-RARP group (43% vs. 29%, p = 0.034), especially in locally advanced tumors (pT3: 64.6% vs. 43.8%, p = 0.041—pT2: 23.5% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.329). The one-year BCR-free survival was 82.6% vs. 81.6% in the SA-RARP and RS-RARP groups, respectively (p = 0.567). The median follow-up was 22 [18–27] vs. 24.5 [17–35] months in the RS-RARP and SA-RARP groups, respectively (p = 0.008). Conclusions: The transition from SA-RARP to RS-RARP can be safely performed by surgeons proficient in SA-RARP. Continence results after RS-RARP were significantly better at any time point. A higher proportion of PSMs was observed, although it did not result in a worse BCR-free survival.

Same day discharge for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective cohort study documenting an Australian approach

BACKGROUND

The introduction of robotic surgical systems has significantly impacted urological surgery, arguably more so than other surgical disciplines. The focus of our study was length of hospital stay - patients have traditionally been discharged day 1 post-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), however, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and consequential resource limitations, our centre has facilitated a cohort of same-day discharges with initial success.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective tertiary single-centre cohort study of a series of all patients (n = 28) - undergoing RARP between January and April 2021. All patients were considered for a day zero discharge pathway which consisted of strict inclusion criteria. At follow-up, each patient's perspective on their experience was assessed using a validated post-operative satisfaction questionnaire. Data were reviewed retrospectively for all those undergoing RARP over the study period, with day zero patients compared to overnight patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 28 patients 20 (71%) fulfilled the objective criteria for day zero discharge. Eleven patients (55%) agreed pre-operatively to day zero discharge and all were successfully discharged on the same day as their procedure. There was no statistically significant difference in age, BMI, ASA, Charlson score or disease volume. All patients indicated a high level of satisfaction with their procedure. Median time from completion of surgery to discharge was 426 min (7.1 h) in the day zero discharge cohort.

CONCLUSION

Day zero discharge for RARP appears to deliver high satisfaction, oncological and safety outcomes. Therefore, our study demonstrates early success with unsupported same-day discharge in carefully selected and pre-counselled patients.

The Efficacy of Urinary Continence in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with Bladder-Prostatic Muscle Reconstruction and Bladder Neck Eversion Anastomosis

Background and Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of bladder-prostatic muscle reconstruction and bladder neck eversion anastomosis in the recovery of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Materials and Methods: From January 2020 to May 2022, 69 patients who underwent RARP in our hospital were recruited. Thirty-seven patients underwent RARP with the Veil of Aphrodite technique (control group). On the basis of the control group, 32 patients underwent bladder-prostatic muscle reconstruction and bladder neck eversion anastomosis during RARP (observation group). The recovery of urinary continence was followed up at 24 h and 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after catheter removal. Results: There were no significant differences in operative time (127.76 ± 21.23 min vs. 118.85 ± 24.71 min), blood loss (118.27 ± 16.75 mL vs. 110.77 ± 19.63 mL), rate of leakage (3.13% vs. 2.70%), rate of positive surgical margin (6.25% vs. 10.81%), or postoperative Gleason score [7 (6−8) vs. 7 (7−8)] between the observation group and the control group (p > 0.05). After catheter removal, the rates of urinary continence at 24 h, 1 week, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks were 46.88%, 68.75%, 84.38%, 90.63%, and 93.75% in the observation group, respectively. Meanwhile, the rates of urinary continence in the control group were 21.62%, 37.84%, 62.16%, 86.49%, and 91.89%, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.034), especially at 24 h, 1 week, and 4 weeks after catheter removal (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Bladder-prostatic muscle reconstruction and bladder neck eversion anastomosis were beneficial to the recovery of urinary continence after RARP, especially early urinary continence.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Advancements in surgical technique and perioperative care

We reviewed the evolving strategies, practice patterns, and recent advancements aimed at improving the perioperative and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for the management of localized prostate cancer.

Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer: a Cochrane Review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (PR-RALP) compared to no PR during standard RALP (S-RALP) for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a systematic search with no restrictions including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing variations of PR-RALP vs S-RALP for clinically localised prostate cancer. The quality of evidence was assessed on outcome basis according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 1085 randomised patients, of whom 963 completed the trials. All patients had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease.

RESULTS

A PR-RALP may improve urinary continence 1 week after catheter removal compared to no PR (risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.73; I²  = 42%, five studies, 498 patients, low certainty of evidence [CoE]). A PR-RALP may have little to no effect on urinary continence 3 months after surgery compared to no PR (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.14; I²  = 67%, six studies, 842 patients, low CoE). A PR-RALP probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to no PR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29-1.92; I²  = 0%, six studies, 835 patients, moderate CoE).

CONCLUSIONS

This review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence 1 week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and positive surgical margin rates are likely similar. There was no difference in our subgroup analysis for all outcomes with anterior reconstruction technique when combined with PR vs only PR.

The Evolution of Retzius-Sparing Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: An IDEAL Perspective

PURPOSE

The Retzius-sparing (RS) approach represents an important surgical innovation in how robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is performed.The aim of this study was to examine to what extent its development has followed the Idea, Development, Evolution, Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) recommendations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies up to the 18th of March 2021. Abstracted data-points included authorship, year of publication, study design, reported endpoints, and length-of follow-up. We mapped each study to the five IDEAL stages of surgical innovation using published criteria.

RESULTS

Of 415 references, 118 were included in our analysis. Five academic centers authored over 50% of all study reports, with the groups from Seoul (24; 20.3%), Milan (15; 12.7%) and Ninjang (10; 8.5%) being the main contributors. Approximately 40% of studies (50/118) were reported as full-text publications. Most of the reports mapped to retrospective studies (97/118; 82.2%) with approximately one-third (31/97; 32.0%) reporting the use of prospectively collected data. Cumulatively, 17,974 RS-RALP were reported on. Of those, 13,929 were unique cases. Approximately 23% of cases were reported in multiple publications (4,045/17,974). We mapped two, 12, and three studies to the Idea, Assessment and Long-term study stages, respectively, and zero to the Development and Evaluation stages.

CONCLUSIONS

Few reported studies followed the IDEAL stages for surgical innovation; none addressed the stages of Development and Evaluation. Future systematic, prospectively planned assessments would be helpful to refine the approach and address issues related to the surgical learning curve.

Evolution of Salvage Radical Prostatectomy from Open to Robotic and Further to Retzius Sparing Surgery

Salvage radical prostatectomy (sRP) has evolved from open to minimally invasive approaches. sRP can be offered to patients with local recurrence to improve biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free and overall survival. We evaluate oncological outcome and continence after retropubic (RRP), conventional (cRARP), and Retzius-sparing robotic (rsRARP) surgery. Materials/methods: A total of 53 patients undergoing sRP between 2010 and 2020 were included. Follow-up included oncological outcome and continence. Results: sRP was done as RRP (n = 25), cRARP (n = 7), or rsRARP (n = 21). Median blood loss was 900 mL, 500 mL, and 300 mL for RRP, cRARP, and rsRARP, respectively. At 12 months, 5 (20%), 0, and 4 (19%) patients were continent, 9 (36%), 3 (43%), and 7 (33%) had grade 1 incontinence, 5 (20%), 2 (29%), and 3 (14%) had grade 2 incontinence, and 3 (12%), 2 (29%), and 4 (19%) had grade 3 incontinence for RRP, cRARP, or rsRARP, respectively. During a mean follow-up of 52.6 months, 16 (64%), 4 (57%), and 3 (14%) developed BCR in the RRP-, cRARP-, and rsRARP-group, respectively. Conclusions: Over the years, sRP has shifted from open to laparoscopic/robotic surgery. RARP shows good oncological and functional outcome. rsRARP ensures direct vision on the rectum during preparation and can therefore increase safety and surgeon’s confidence, especially in the salvage setting.

Radical or Not-So-Radical Prostatectomy: Do Surgical Margins Matter?

Simple Summary

Prostate cancer is the second most common noncutaneous malignancy in men. Prostatectomy is a commonly used treatment modality for selected patients. The prostate’s ill-defined borders and its vicinity with vital structures complicate the wide excision of the organ, resulting in positive margins of resection. Neoplastic infiltration of margins of resection in prostatectomy specimens affects patients’ prognosis. The surgical technique and surgeons’ expertise affect the incidence of margin positivity. The location and the extent of positive margins diversify the risk of recurrence, with basal infiltration and multifocal foci of positive margins behaving more aggressively. Pathologists are encouraged to thoroughly report the status of margins of resection, as they provide important information for patients’ prognosis and enable the clinician to decide upon the most appropriate subsequent therapeutic steps.

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the second most common malignancy in men, and prostatectomy is the treatment of choice for most patients with at least low risk of progression. The presence of positive margins in the radical prostatectomy specimen is considered an adverse pathologic feature, and may prompt additional therapeutic intervention in the patients. The absence of a distinct capsule around the prostate and intraoperative manipulations that aim to minimize postoperative adverse effects, complicate its wide removal. Proper handling of the specimen during the gross processing is essential for accurate determination of the status of margins or resection. Positive margins, defined as the presence of neoplastic glands in the highlighted-with-ink margin of resection, range from 6–38%. The surgical technique, surgeon’s expertise and tumor (i.e., grade and stage) and patients’ (i.e., BMI) characteristics affect the rate of margin positivity. Extensive or multifocal and nonanterior/nonapical positive margins are linked with higher recurrence rates, especially in organ-confined disease, underscoring the need for treating these patients more aggressively. In summary, detailed description of the status of the margins should be performed in every pathology report to determine patients’ prognosis and the most appropriate therapeutic plan.

Denonvilliers’ fascia acts as the fulcrum and hammock for continence after radical prostatectomy

Background

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the primary treatment of localized prostate cancer. Immediate urinary incontinence post-RP was still common and depressing without specific reason.

Methods

A multicenter cohort of 154 consecutive patients from 2018 to 2020, who was diagnosed with localized prostate cancer underwent either modified mini-incision retropubic radical prostatectomy (Mmi-RRP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Seventy-two patients with Denonvilliers’ fascia (DF) spared were included in DFS (Denonvilliers’ fascia sparing) group. Whereas eighty-two patients with DF completely or partially dissected were set as Group Control. The primary outcome was immediate continence (ImC). Continuous data and categorical data were analyzed with t-test and Chi-square test, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with logistic regression.

Results

Urinary continence of Group DFS was significantly better than that of Group Control at each time point within one year after operation. Incidence rate of continence in Group DFS and Group Control were 83.3% vs 13.4% (P < 0.01) for ImC, 90.3% vs 30.5% (P < 0.01) at 3 months, 91.7% vs 64.6% (P < 0.01) at 6 months, and 93.1% vs 80.5% (P = 0.02) at 1 year after operation, respectively. Positive surgical margin (PSM) showed no significant difference (20.8% vs 20.7%, P = 1.0). In multivariate analysis, DFS showed importance for ImC post RP (OR = 26.4, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Denonvilliers’ fascia acted as the fulcrum and hammock for continence post RP. Preservation of DF contributed to better continence after RP without increase of PSM.

Trail registration Our research was conducted retrospectively and approved by the ethical committees of Minhang Hospital, but not registered.

Transvesical Retzius-Sparing Versus Standard Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis

Objectives

To estimate the safety and efficiency of transvesical Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (T-RARP) compared with standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa).

Materials and Methods

174 patients bearing localized PCa and undergoing T-RARP or S-RARP between October 2017 and January 2020 were retrospectively enrolled in our analysis. All potential baseline confounders were strictly restrained with propensity-score matching (PM) method (1: 1). Within the matched setting, the perioperative and functional outcomes were compared between the T-RARP and S-RARP groups, while the oncological results and functional recovery of the two arms were presented with Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results

Finally, 114 and 60 eligible patients harbouring localized PCa were identified in the S-RARP and T-RARP group, respectively. No significant differences between the two groups were found in all baseline characteristics after PM. Within the matched cohort, no case was converted to open surgery in either group. The T-RARP group was significantly related to a higher mean operative time (p = 0.001) and shorter median hospital stay length (p < 0.001). There were not significant differences in the median estimated blood loss and specimen Gleason score between the two arms. The proportions of transfusion, pT3a disease, postoperative complication, and positive surgical margin in the T-RARP group were also comparable to that in the S-RARP group. The mean prostate-specific antigen and median erectile functional scores did not differ significantly between the two groups at postoperative 3 months and last follow-up. T-RARP vs. S-RARP had significantly improved urinary continence (UC) rates at the removal of catheter (p < 0.001) and postoperative 3 months (p < 0.001), but the significant difference between the two groups in UC recovery disappeared at last follow-up (p = 0.119). No significant difference in biochemical recurrence-free survival was observed following the two surgeries (p = 0.727).

Conclusions

T-RARP by experienced hands was feasible for selected patients with clinically localized PCa, yielding significantly improved early return to UC and similar erectile functional preservation without compromising oncological control when compared with the standard approach.