Transvesical Versus Posterior Approach to Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Comparison With a 12-Month Follow-Up

Comparative study of each surgical step in radical prostatectomy under 3D and 2D laparoscopy

Objective

Comparing the specific advantages and surgical outcomes of each step in radical prostatectomy under 3D vs. 2D laparoscopy.

Methods

From October 2019 to January 2023, our urology department treated 63 cases of prostate cancer, using an odd-even arrangement method to divide into two groups. This is a non-randomized prospective study, with 33 odd-numbered cases in the 3D group and 30 even-numbered cases in the 2D group. The surgery was divided into four steps: (1) establishing an extraperitoneal pneumoperitoneum (2) pelvic lymph node dissection (3)excising the prostate (4)bladder-urethral anastomosis, comparing the two groups in terms of surgical time, blood loss, and relevant postoperative indicators for each step.

Results

All 63 surgeries were successfully completed without any conversions. Comparing 3D and 2D laparoscopy groups, there were statistically significant differences in total surgery time (123.5 ± 15.3 min vs. 145.6 ± 17.2 min, P < 0.05), total blood loss (198.3 ± 18.4 ml vs. 243.1 ± 20.1 ml, P < 0.05), prostate excision time (55.1 ± 8.4 min vs. 67.2 ± 9.3 min, P < 0.05) and blood loss (101.6 ± 12.2 ml vs. 123.8 ± 14.1 ml, P < 0.05), bladder-urethral anastomosis time (30.5 ± 4.3 min vs. 37.6 ± 5.1 min, P < 0.05) and blood loss (62.7 ± 9.7 ml vs. 82.5 ± 8.2 ml, P < 0.05). There were no statistical differences in the time and blood loss during the establishment of extraperitoneal pneumoperitoneum and the cleaning of pelvic lymph nodes (P > 0.05). In terms of urinary incontinence rates, the 3D laparoscopy group was lower than the 2D group, and in terms of preserving erectile function, the 3D group was higher than the 2D group, with significant statistical differences (P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of postoperative drainage days, hospitalization days, hospitalization costs, time of catheter removaland positive margin rates (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared to traditional 2D laparoscopy, 3D laparoscopy can shorten the operation time and reduce bleeding in the steps of prostate excision and bladder-urethral anastomosis, but there was no significant difference in peri-operative outcomes.

Robot-assisted Surgery in the Field of Urology: The Most Pioneering Approaches 2015-2023

Robot-assisted surgery has emerged as a transformative technology, revolutionizing surgical approaches and techniques that decades ago could barely be imagined. The field of urology has taken charge in pioneering a new era of minimally invasive surgery with the ascent of robotic systems which offer enhanced visualization, precision, dexterity, and enabling surgeons to perform intricate maneuvers with improved accuracy. This has led to improved surgical outcomes, including reduced blood loss, lower complication rates, and faster patient recovery. The aim of our review is to present an evidence-based critical analysis on the most pioneering robotic urologic approaches described over the last eight years (2015-2023).

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.

Efficacy of the transvesical approach for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy via a bladder neck and prostate combined longitudinal incision for the treatment of localized prostate cancer

Objective

This study explores the feasibility and safety of the transvesical approach of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy via a bladder neck and prostate combined longitudinal incision.

Methods

From June 2017 to May 2021, 41 patients aged from 51 to 69 years underwent the transvesical approach of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy via a bladder neck and prostate combined longitudinal incision (L-RALP). The prostate volume was 22.0-57.8 ml (mean: 36.3 ± 11.1 ml), with a preoperative PSA value of 3.7-12.3 ng/ml (mean: 7.3 ± 1.2 ng/mL). All preoperative Gleason scores were less than or equal to 7 points, and the preoperative TNM stage ranged from T2a to T2b. All patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer by preoperative prostate biopsy or postoperative pathological specimens after prostatectomy. The operation, blood loss, hospitalization, erectile function and postoperative urinary continence were recorded. Patients were defined as continent if they answered "zero pad" per day, and they were invited to fill out The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICI-Q-SF) after the catheter removal at 4 and 24 weeks.

Results

All the operations were completed by robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy without transition to open surgery. The surgery time was 105-131 min (mean: 111.3 ± 14.9 min), with an estimated blood loss of 50-220 ml (mean: 95.5 ± 27.3 ml). The postoperative hospital stay was 3-8 days (mean: 5.2 ± 1.7 days), and the postoperative catheter was removed after 5-7 days (mean: 6.3 ± 1.1 days). After 24 weeks of follow-up, 35 cases (85.4%, 35/41) obtained immediate urinary continence after the catheter removal in 24h. All patients had regained continence 24 weeks postoperatively (100%, 41/41).

Conclusion

The transvesical approach of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy via a bladder neck and prostate combined longitudinal incision is a safe and effective surgical technique, beneficial for early continence recovery and erectile function, and it is also suitable for prostate cancer patients after prostate enucleation.

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.

Functional Preservation and Oncologic Control following Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

AIM

To evaluate the urinary continence (UC), erectile function, and cancer control obtained following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for intermediate- and high-risk localized prostate cancer (PCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

232 patients bearing intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa were enrolled in this study. Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were analyzed after applying the propensity score matched method.

RESULTS

Within the matched cohort, the RARP group was corrected with a significantly shorter mean operative time than the LRP group (p < 0.001). Patients in the RARP arm were also at a lower risk of ≤ Grade II complications than those in the LRP group (p = 0.036). Meanwhile, the proportions of transfusion and ≥ Grade II complications in the RARP group were similar to those in the LRP group (p = 0.192 and p = 1.000, respectively). No significant differences regarding the rates of pT3 disease and positive surgical margin existed between the two groups. RARP versus LRP tended to a significantly higher percentage of UC recovery within the follow-up period. Significant differences were also found between the RARP and LRP arms in terms of erectile function at postoperative 6 months and the last follow-up (p = 0.013 and p = 0.009, respectively). Statistical comparability in biochemical recurrence-free survival was observed between the two groups (p = 0.228).

CONCLUSIONS

For the surgical management of intermediate- and high-risk localized PCa, RARP tended to a lower risk of ≤ Grade II complications and superior functional preservation without cancer control being compromised than LRP.

Independent Factors Affecting Postoperative Short-Term Urinary Continence Recovery after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Background

Our team had firstly applied the transvesical approach to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients afflicted with localized prostate cancer (PCa). The present study aims to present the postoperative recovery of urinary continence (UC) following the anterior, transvesical, and posterior approaches to RARP for localized PCa and evaluate the independent predictors to early UC recovery after RARP.

Methods

Patients harboring localized PCa and receiving anterior, transvesical, and posterior approaches to RARP between January 2017 and June 2020 were enrolled in this analysis. Results on UC recovery were compared between these three approaches with the Kaplan–Meier method. All clinical and pathological variables were further analyzed via univariable and multivariable regression analysis to determine the independent factors contributing to short-term UC recovery after RARP.

Results

A total of 135, 73, and 66 instances were included in the anterior, transvesical, and posterior groups, respectively. Over the postoperative follow-up period, both the transvesical and posterior approaches showed an advantage over the anterior approach in promoting postoperative UC recovery (both p values <0.001). Three months after surgery, 55 (40.7%), 4 (5.5%), and 5 (7.6%) patients failed to UC in the anterior, transvesical, and posterior groups, respectively. Patient age, preoperative PSA, prostate volume, biopsy Gleason score, surgical approach, extended lymph node dissection technique, nerve-sparing technique, and positive lymph node were related to UC status based on univariable analyses (p < 0.05). Multivariable analysis results point patient age, prostate volume, surgical approach, and nerve-sparing technique as independent factors that affect postoperative UC recovery after RARP.

Conclusions

The application of transvesical approach to RARP for localized PCa could obtain promising outcomes in terms of postoperative UC recovery. In addition, surgical strategies encompassing the nerve-sparing technique and the Retzius-sparing procedures, namely, the transvesical or posterior approach, during RARP could independently enable early achievement of postoperative continence.

Functional and Oncological Outcomes Following Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer With a Large Prostate Volume: A Retrospective Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Ups

Objective

We aimed to analyze the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by a large prostate volume (PV; ≥50 ml) over a minimum of 2 years follow-up.

Materials and Methods

Patients undergoing RARP and LRP for localized PCa with a large PV were included in the final analysis. The perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed between the two groups.

Results

All operations were successfully completed without open conversion in both groups. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss in the RARP group were significantly decreased compared to those in the LRP group (139.4 vs. 159.0 min, p = 0.001, and 124.2 vs. 157.3 ml, p = 0.003, respectively). Patients in the RARP arm had significantly lower proportions of grade II or lower and of higher than grade II postoperative complications compared with those in the LRP group (7.9% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.033, and 1.6% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.047, respectively). No significant differences in terms of the rates of pT3 disease, positive surgical margin, and positive lymph node were noted between the two groups. Moreover, no significant difference in the median specimen Gleason score was observed between the RARP and LRP groups (6 vs. 7, p = 0.984). RARP vs. LRP resulted in higher proportions of urinary continence upon catheter removal (48.4% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.021) and at 3 (65.1% vs. 50.5%, p = 0.025) and 24 (90.5% vs. 81.0%, p = 0.037) months post-operation. The median erectile function scores at 6 and 24 months post-operation in the RARP arm were also significantly higher than those in the LRP arm (15 vs. 15, p = 0.042, and 15 vs. 13, p = 0.026, respectively). Kaplan–Meier analyses indicated that the biochemical recurrence-free survival and accumulative proportion of continence were statistically comparable between the two groups (p = 0.315 and p = 0.020, respectively).

Conclusions

For surgically managing localized PCa with a large prostate (≥50 ml), RARP had a tendency toward a lower risk of postoperative complications and better functional preservation without cancer control being compromised when compared to LRP.