Management of erectile dysfunction following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the avatera system™: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a minimally invasive, safe procedure preferred in the management of localized prostate cancer. In this study, we present our initial experience with the avatera™ system (avateramedical GmbH, Jena, Germany) in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

A total of fourteen patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using this newly introduced system in our department from June 2022 to October 2022. The primary endpoints of the study were the time and the successful completion of the operation, the hemoglobin drop and the presence of complications. The pathologic tumor stage and the presence of positive surgical margins were also recorded. Follow-up of the patients for the functional outcomes over a period of 3 months took place.

RESULTS

The completion of all the surgeries was successful. The median draping and docking times were 9.5 minutes (7-13) and 10 minutes (5-40), respectively. The median console time was 103.5 minutes (90-121). No conversion to laparoscopic or open prostatectomy was necessary. The median hemoglobin drop was 1.95 g/dL (0.3-2.7), while positive surgical margins were present in two patients postoperatively. No major complications or need for transfusion were noticed. Six months after the procedure, 78.6% of the participants were continent while 77.7% of the nerve-sparing patients reported erections adequate for intercourse.

CONCLUSIONS

All the operations were completed successfully without major complications or significant blood loss. The functional outcomes were acceptable according to the literature. Based on the early outcomes, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the avatera™ system (avateramedical GmbH) could be considered feasible, safe, and efficient.

Penoscrotal approach for inflatable penile prosthesis implant: why it should be preferred

INTRODUCTION

Inflatable penile prosthesis are the definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction. The two most used surgical approaches to position the implants are the penoscrotal and the infrapubic. Current trends showed that the penoscrotal approach is extensively preferred however, there is not conclusive evidence demonstrating the superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this review is to summarize the scientific evidence available and to underline strengths and weaknesses of the two techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and National Center for Biotechnology Information PubMed to identify relevant published articles. The included studies had to explicitly examine the use of three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis with a focus on the surgical access method and complications.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-six articles were included in the review: seven narrative reviews, five retrospective observational studies, five prospective observational studies, and nine mixed methodology studies. The most frequent approach was the penoscrotal, which was also found more comfortable (RG1) by the operators in one study. The infrapubic approach lasts less and one study demonstrated higher satisfaction by the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence of significant differences in complications among the penoscrotal and infrapubic approaches. While the infrapubic approach is faster and patients were more satisfied, the penoscrotal approach is the most used by far. This is likely related to the more straightforward procedure through this access and the excellent surgical field exposure. For these reasons, it is also preferred in the most complex cases.

MRI/real-time ultrasound image fusion guided high-intensity focused ultrasound: a prospective comparative and functional analysis of different ablative techniques

BACKGROUND

The aim of this paper was to compare safety and functional outcomes of total, hemi and focal ablation by the latest focal high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) device.

METHODS

This is a prospective study including patients with low to intermediate-risk PCa treated with HIFU by Focal One^® device from 11/2018 to 3/2020. Before the treatment all patients underwent mp-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent MRI/transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) fusion and standard biopsy. Patients were stratified according to the type of ablation: total, hemi- or focal ablation. Functional data (IPSS, Quality of Life [QoL], IIEF-5, maximum flow [Qmax] and post void residual [PVR] at flowmetry) were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment. Moreover, the urinary symptoms reported by patients at IPSS questionnaire were divided in "irritative" and "obstructive" and compared.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were enrolled. Median prostate volume and lesion diameter were 46 (IQR 25-75) mL and 10 (IQR 6-13) mm. 15, 50 and 35 patients underwent total, hemi- and focal ablation, respectively. No differences were found between them except for operative time (lower in the focal group, P<0.01). Significant lower incidence of irritative symptoms was identified in the focal group compared to the others (P<0.05 at 1 and 3 months of follow-up). No differences were found among the baseline status and the postoperative assessment in terms of obstructive IPSS items, IIEF-5, QoL, Qmax and PVR (all P value>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that patients' specific HIFU tailoring with the MRI/real-time TRUS Guidance by Focal One^® device is able to minimize the side effects of treatment.

Current trends in erectile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: Results from a worldwide survey

We aimed to analyse the current trend of erectile rehabilitation (ER) following radical prostatectomy (RP) using a dedicated survey. An online survey was developed between July and September 2020, aiming to evaluate the ER protocols after RP in daily practice among urologists, andrologists, sexual medicine specialists and residents. We investigated demographics data, type of RP performed, and type, schedule, timing and duration of ER protocols. In total, 518 responders from 52 countries completed the survey. Surgical techniques reported were: 38.9% open, 22.9% laparoscopic and 38.2% robot-assisted RP. 33% of the responders begin ER at the catheter removal, 22% 1 month after surgery and 15% before surgery. Phosphodiesterase inhibitors were the most used medication as first-line treatment (99.4%). Tadalafil 20 mg was the most prescribed, and used daily in 48.2% of the cases, and 2-3 times/week in 46%. Intra-cavernosal injection of prostaglandin E1 was the second most common prescribed monotherapy (67.9%) followed by the association of phosphodiesterase inhibitors and vacuum-erection device (29.6%). The duration of ER was <6 months in 16.2%, between 6 and 11 months in 39%, between 12 and 18 months in 31.9%, between 19-24 months in 9.2% and >24 months in 3.7%. This study showed that the approach to ER after RP was inhomogeneous. International guidelines are urgently needed to standardise ER protocols.

Systematic review comparing Anterior vs Retzius-sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: can the approach really make a difference?

INTRODUCTION

Retzius-Sparing Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RS-RARP) is a novel surgical approach to radical prostatectomy. Its pioneers have suggested an improved recovery of urinary continence, while maintaining adequate cancer control. Aim of this systematic review is to explore available data on RS-RALP and compare functional, oncologic and perioperative results of RS-RARP compared to anterior RARP.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A search following PRISMA guidelines was performed including the combination of the following words: retzius AND sparing AND radical AND prostatectomy. 93 articles were identified and 13 were included in the systematic review, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 4 prospective studies and 6 retrospective studies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

All available randomized trials confirmed an improved immediate continence for RS-RARP, with rates ranging 51-71%, compared to 21-48% for anterior RARP. However, this advantage was progressively lost with no significant difference found after 6 months. Moreover, a prospective study found no discrepancy in terms of quality of life across the two techniques. Erectile function was difficult to compare, as patients had different baseline erectile function across studies and rate of neurovascular preservation was not comparable. Surgical approach remains controversial regarding positive margin rate, although related to the surgeon's experience and clinical stage. Biochemical recurrence-free survival appears similar between the two approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

RS-RARP improves early urinary continence recovery compared to anterior RARP, with this advantage being lost after 3 to 6 months. Erectile function and quality of life were however comparable between the two techniques. The results concerning the rate of positive margins remained controversial. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to better assess oncologic outcomes.

Bioethical implications of robotic surgery in urology: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Robotic technologies are being increasingly implemented in healthcare, including urology, holding promises for improving medicine worldwide. However, these new approaches raise ethical concerns for professionals, patients, researchers and institutions that need to be addressed. The aim of this review is to investigate the existing literature related to bioethical issues associated with robotic surgery in urology, in order to identify current challenges and make preliminary suggestions to ensure an ethical implementation of these technologies.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the pertaining literature through a systematic search of two databases (PubMed and Web of Science) in August 2020.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 76 articles for full-text evaluation and 48 articles were included in the narrative review. Several bioethical issues were identified and can be categorized into five main subjects: 1) robotic surgery accessibility; 2) safety; 3) gender gap; 4) costs and 5) learning curve. 1) Robotic surgery is expensive, and in some health systems may lead to inequality in healthcare access. In more affluent countries the national distribution of several robotic platforms may influence the centralization of robotic surgery, therefore potentially affecting oncological and functional outcomes in low-volume centers. 2) There is a considerable gap between surgical skills and patients' perception of competence, leading to ethical consequences on modern healthcare. Published incidence of adverse events during robotic surgery in large series is between 2% and 15%, which does not significantly differ amongst open or laparoscopic approaches. 3) No data about gap differences in accessibility to robotic platforms were retrieved from our search. 4) Robotic platforms are expensive but a key reason why hospitals are willing to absorb the high upfront costs is patient demand. It is possible to achieve cost-equivalence between open and robotic prostatectomy if the volume of centers is higher than 10 cases per week. 5) A validated, structured curriculum and accreditation has been created for robotic surgery. This allows acquisition and development of basic and complex robotic skills focusing on patient safety and short learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Tech-medicine is rapidly moving forward. Robotic approach to urology seems to be accessible in more affluent countries, safe, economically sustainable, and easy to learn with an appropriate learning curve for both sex. It is mandatory to keep maintaining a critical rational approach with constant control of the available evidence regarding efficacy, efficiency and safety.