A comparison of perioperative outcome between robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience of a single institution

Evaluating the Oncological and Functional Outcomes in 167 Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Could Laparoscopy Still be a Viable Option in Suitable Patients?

Aim: To evaluate the oncological and functional outcomes of 167 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Materials and Methods: The retrospective study included 167 patients who were treated with LRP due to clinically localized prostate cancer between January 2007 and April 2012. Most of the patients were treated with the extraperitoneal approach. Preoperative evaluations included age, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and biopsy Gleason score. Perioperative evaluations included duration of operative time and anastomosis time, blood loss (milliliter), and complications. Postoperative evaluations included length of hospital stay and catheterization time. Continence and erectile function were evaluated both pre- and postoperatively. The patients who used no pads or no more than one pad daily and the ones who had only a few urine leakages on effort or exertion were accepted as continent. Postoperative potency was defined as the ability to achieve sexual intercourse with or without the use of PDE-5 inhibitors. Results: Mean age and mean operative time were 62.4 ± 6.0 years and 220.5 ± 45.6 minutes, respectively. Mean anastomosis time was 35.6 ± 9.8 minutes. Mean serum PSA level and mean Gleason score were 17.5 ± 9.97 ng/mL and 6.16 ± 0.42, respectively. Pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed in 94 patients and nerve-sparing procedures in 61 patients. The pathological analysis revealed positive surgical margin in 35 patients (20.9%). Bilateral and unilateral nerve-sparing LRP procedures were performed in 51 (30.5%) and 10 (6%) patients, respectively. At 12 months after surgery, 3 (1.8%) patients were using 2 or more pads per day, 19 (26.4%) patients were satisfied with erection, hardness, and duration of intercourse, and 9 (12.5%) patients had an erection with insufficient hardness and duration. Conclusion: LRP is an acceptable method in localized prostate cancer due to its perioperative and early postoperative results.

Transperitoneal Versus Extraperitoneal Approach for Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To conduct a comparative analysis of outcomes from 2 different surgical approaches, transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (TP-RP) and extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EP-RP) in minimally invasive surgery. A comprehensive search was conducted up to September 2022 using 5 online databases, namely PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, EMBASE, and Science Direct. Studies were screened per the eligibility criteria, and outcomes included operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital stay, operative complication, and positive surgical margin. Total of 13 studies compiled of 2387 patients were selected, with TP-RP and EP-RP performed on 1117 (46.79%) and 1270 (53.21%) patients, respectively. Six laparoscopy radical prostatectomy (LRP) studies and 7 robotassisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) studies with 1140 and 1247 patients, respectively, were also included. The EP-RP demonstrated a marked advantage in terms of operative complications (Risk Ratio [RR]=0.78, 95% CI=0.62, 0.98; P=.04), but no significant difference concluded for operative duration, EBL, hospital stay, and surgical margin. In the RARP group, there was a significant difference in operative duration for EP-RARP and TP-RARP (Mean difference [MD]=-17.27, 95% CI=-26.89, -7.65; P=.0004), hospital stay (MD=-0.54, 95% CI=-0.94, -0.14; P=.008), and operative complications (RR=0.7, 95% CI=0.49, 0.99; P=.04). There were no noteworthy variations identified in EBL and surgical margin. Furthermore, the LRP group did not show any significant differences. This study shows that regardless of the techniques used, EP-RP has a lower risk of operative complications than TP-RP, with no significant difference in other outcomes.

Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer: the first separate systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Due to the lack of sufficient evidence, it is not clear whether robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is better for prostate cancer. The authors conducted this study by separately pooling and analysing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies to compare the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between RARP and LRP.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in March 2022 using Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Two independent reviewers performed literature screening, data extraction and quality assessment according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 46 articles were included, including 4 from 3 RCTs and 42 from non-randomised studies. For RCTs, meta-analysis showed that RARP and LRP were similar in blood loss, catheter indwelling time, overall complication rate, overall positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence rates, but quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies showed that RARP was associated with less blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-71.99, 95% CI -99.37 to -44.61, P <0.001], shorter catheterization duration (WMD=-1.03, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.22, P =0.010), shorter hospital stay (WMD=-0.41, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.13, P =0.004), lower transfusion rate (OR=0.44, 95% CI 0.35-0.56, P <0.001), lower overall complication rate (OR=0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.96, P =0.020), and lower biochemical recurrence rate (OR=0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.92, P =0.004), compared with LRP. Both meta-analysis of RCTs and quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies showed that RARP was associated with improved functional outcomes. From the results of the meta-analysis of RCTs, RARP was higher than LRP in terms of overall continence recovery [odds ratio (OR)=1.60, 95% CI 1.16-2.20, P =0.004), overall erectile function recovery (OR=4.07, 95% CI 2.51-6.60, P <0.001), continence recovery at 1 month (OR=2.14, 95% CI 1.25-3.66, P =0.005), 3 (OR=1.51, 95% CI 1.12-2.02, P =0.006), 6 (OR=2.66, 95% CI 1.31-5.40, P =0.007), and 12 months (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.36-9.13, P =0.010) postoperatively, and potency recovery at 3 (OR=4.25, 95% CI 1.67-10.82, P =0.002), 6 (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.31-9.44, P =0.010), and 12 months (OR=3.59, 95% CI 1.78-7.27, P <0.001) postoperatively, which were consistent with the quantitative synthesis of non-randomised studies. When sensitivity analysis was performed, the results remained largely unchanged, but the heterogeneity among studies was greatly reduced.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that RARP can improve functional outcomes compared with LRP. Meanwhile, RARP has potential advantages in perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

A comparison of the da Vinci Xi vs. da Vinci Si surgical systems for radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

To compare the perioperative and short-term efficacy and cost of the da Vinci Xi and da Vinci Si surgical systems for radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 175 patients with prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si or Xi surgical systems in our hospital from June 2019 to June 2020. Of the 175 patients, 82 underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Xi surgery system, and 93 patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci Si surgical system. The perioperative outcomes, short-term efficacy and costs were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The anesthesia time, operation time, docking time, indwelling catheter time and postoperative bed rest time in the Xi group were shorter than those in the Si group (respectively, 268.8 min vs. 219.3 min, P = 0.001; 228.2 min vs. 259.6 min, P < 0.001; 7.4 min vs. 12.7 min, P < 0.001; 8.6 d vs. 9.7 d, P = 0.036; 2.2 d vs. 2.6 d, P = 0.002). However, the total cost of hospitalization and the cost of intraoperative consumables in the Xi group were higher than those in the Si group (84,740.7 vs. 76,739.1 ¥, P = 0.003; 13,199.4 vs. 10,823.0 ¥, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the cost of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is higher, compared with the Si system, the Xi system has better perioperative outcomes and can provide similar short-term efficacy and oncology outcomes.

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.

A novel "three-port" trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Background

To introduce a novel “three-port” trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 300 patients with PCa who received surgical treatment between November 2010 and June 2015 at our institution. They were divided into group A, three-port LRP; group B, conventional four-five-port LRP; group C, open RP (ORP); and group D, robotic-assisted RP (RARP). A learning curve was analyzed by dividing patients of group A into the early and late stages.

Results

All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics except for the relatively smaller prostate volume in group A. The three-port LRP operations were performed successfully with only 8 cases of conversion to the conventional LRP. None of any severe complications or conversion to ORP occurred. In group A, the mean operative time (OT) duration was 113.8 min, the mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 94.2 ml, the mean drainage days was 4.0 days, the mean hospitalization was 5.1 days, and 27.8% of the prostate specimen margins (PSM) were positive. The differences of OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization, and transfusion in group A were statistically significant among the majority of the other groups (p < 0.05). After undergoing the early stages of a learning curve analysis in three-port LRP, the EBL was obviously decreased.

Conclusions

Three-port LRP is a novel technique that exhibits superior intraoperative advantages to the conventional LRP. Due to its less OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization, and transfusion with a shorter learning curve, it should be recommended and popularized in the clinical practice.