-
The Urologic Clinics of North America Feb 2021Radical prostatectomy has undergone many adaptations since its inception, including the Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy approach. In this article,... (Review)
Review
Radical prostatectomy has undergone many adaptations since its inception, including the Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy approach. In this article, we review the origins of radical prostatectomy, the theoretic basis for Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, and outline the key steps of the procedure. To date, there have been 9 studies comparing the outcomes of Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with standard robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy, which have demonstrated improved continence outcomes for Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy within the first year and equivalent oncologic efficacy out to 18 months. Further research is needed to evaluate sexual function outcomes as well as long-term oncologic outcomes.
Topics: Fascia; Fasciotomy; Forecasting; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Male; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 33218585
DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2020.09.012 -
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica = the... Mar 2015Over the past decade, the robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has grown increasingly popular and quickly equated itself as the most commonly used modality to... (Review)
Review
Over the past decade, the robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has grown increasingly popular and quickly equated itself as the most commonly used modality to treat locally-confined prostate cancer. Despite increased utilization, there is limited comparative research demonstrating superiority for RARP over the conventional radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Furthermore, though perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes are equivalent if not superior for the robotic approach, the optimal utilization of robotic technology remains to be determined with cost serving as a primary driver. In this review, we performed a literature search to identify comparative effectiveness research as it pertains to RARP versus RRP. We performed a PubMed literature search for a review of articles published between 2000 and 2014 using the following keywords to identify pertinent research: "robot or robotic prostatectomy", "open or retropubic prostatectomy", "cost", "resource utilization". Long-term data comparing RARP and RRP remains limited, though short-term positive surgical margins, biochemical recurrence-free survival, and need for adjuvant therapy appear at least equivocal, if not in favor of RARP versus RRP. Functional outcomes including return of continence and potency favor RARP while cost still favors RRP. Nonetheless, the generalization of results remains difficult with surgeon volume playing a large role in improving efficiency and quality. For the foreseeable future, an increasing number of prostatectomies will continue to be performed robotically. Though RARP appears to offer improved functional outcomes with good short-term oncologic outcomes, there is a need for longer-term studies to assess the true value of RARP. Outcomes aside, rigorous, prospective randomized-controlled trials must also be performed on the cost-effectiveness of RARP to determine its overall utility in an era of health care delivery reform.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Los Angeles; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25424387
DOI: No ID Found -
The Urologic Clinics of North America Feb 2021Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the most common surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer. The ideal procedure would achieve maximum oncological... (Review)
Review
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is the most common surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer. The ideal procedure would achieve maximum oncological efficacy while minimizing associated side effects, such as erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence. Surgeon experience and surgical technique affect RARP outcomes. Here, the authors review RARP technical modifications aimed at optimizing cancer control and postoperative urinary and sexual function.
Topics: Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 33218583
DOI: 10.1016/j.ucl.2020.09.002 -
The Canadian Journal of Urology Oct 2015Prostatectomy for benign disease, also known as a 'simple prostatectomy', is neither simple in indication nor approach. In the post-Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
Prostatectomy for benign disease, also known as a 'simple prostatectomy', is neither simple in indication nor approach. In the post-Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS), NCT00021814 trial era, the medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and consequent bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) has shifted surgical intervention to those patients who are medical-non responders, present with advanced signs of BOO and obstructive uropathy, and those with prostate gland volumes beyond the size normally approachable with standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Simple prostatectomy through an open surgical approach is associated with improvements in BOO and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) but at the expense of considerable surgical and perioperative morbidity. Advances in technology have made it possible for patients to be offered standard open surgical approaches as well as transurethral approaches with photon-based energy sources (i.e. laser prostatectomy) and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy. A review of the historical challenges of BPH and the standard-of-care of open prostatectomy will put into perspective the potential advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy for the treatment of benign BOO due to BPH.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A careful review of the literature was performed utilizing PubMed and ClinicalKey searches to identify relevant articles. Search terms 'simple prostatectomy', 'robotic simple prostatectomy' and 'laparoscopic simple prostatectomy'.
RESULTS
Over 14 series of open simple prostatectomies and over 20 minimally invasive series were identified and used as a reference. Additionally, several review articles were identified and incorporated.
CONCLUSIONS
Simple prostatectomy may be performed safely in appropriately selected patients utilizing either open or minimally invasive approaches. Clinical criteria should be used to determine the appropriateness of either retropubic versus transvesical approach.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Length of Stay; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26497345
DOI: No ID Found -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Apr 2019Men undergoing prostatectomy can have unrealistic preoperative expectations regarding sexual function after surgery and may desire more education on recovery and symptom... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Men undergoing prostatectomy can have unrealistic preoperative expectations regarding sexual function after surgery and may desire more education on recovery and symptom management.
AIM
To present contemporary data on recovery of sexual function after prostatectomy and characterize how it is impacted by perioperative patient educational interventions.
METHODS
A comprehensive review of the English-language literature available by PubMed search.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Rates of sexual function recovery after prostatectomy and the impact of educational interventions on these and related outcomes.
RESULTS
Available studies describe heterogeneous educational and support interventions that differ by patient selection, content, method of delivery, timing, and duration. Interventions with group-based education or peer support benefitted sexual satisfaction metrics. Many studies included men and their partners in supportive interventions. However, the few randomized controlled trials directly analyzing the effect of partner attendance revealed no additional benefit to outcomes. Interventions within 6 weeks of prostatectomy variably aided measures of sexual recovery. Some studies with greater time between prostate cancer treatment and interventions revealed only temporary improvements in outcomes. Yet durable improvements in sexual satisfaction and sexual function were observed in some men enrolled years after prostate cancer treatment. At times, web-based interventions had lower completion rates, but sexual function outcomes were comparable to traditional in-person interventions within randomized trials.
CONCLUSION
Educational interventions imparted variable benefit to sexual function and satisfaction, with group-based designs mostly benefitting satisfaction outcomes. Despite standardized interventions, men reported worse-than-expected outcomes, suggesting an emphasis on counseling regarding changes in erectile function at multiple time points before surgery and during the recovery period may be helpful. Earlier interventions may help with recovery by establishing more accurate patient expectations. Regarding accessibility, future endeavors may be improved with internet-based educational content, as such interventions appeared to provide comparable benefits to in-person sessions. Faris AER, Montague DK, Gill BC. Perioperative Educational Interventions and Contemporary Sexual Function Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:293-305.
Topics: Health Education; Humans; Male; Perioperative Period; Personal Satisfaction; Prostatectomy; Recovery of Function; Sex; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30057140
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2018.05.003 -
Future Oncology (London, England) 2015Since its introduction in the year 2000, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) rapidly diffused, and nowadays roughly 70% of all the radical prostatectomies in the... (Review)
Review
Since its introduction in the year 2000, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) rapidly diffused, and nowadays roughly 70% of all the radical prostatectomies in the USA are performed using this approach. Interestingly, the broad dissemination of RARP occurred in the absence of comprehensive data coming from prospective randomized trials supporting the superiority of RARP versus the conventional open RP (ORP). Only observations originating from retrospective institutional or large population-based cohorts exist with respect to the comparative effectiveness of the two surgical techniques. What we have learned is that, given an adequate learning curve, RARP leads to better perioperative and long-term functional outcomes compared with ORP, without any compromise to cancer control outcomes. That being said, the substantially higher costs associated with the use of robotics cannot be ignored.
Topics: Humans; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26358012
DOI: 10.2217/fon.15.169 -
Ontario Health Technology Assessment... 2017Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in Canadian men. Radical prostatectomy is one of the treatment options available, and involves removing the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prostate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in Canadian men. Radical prostatectomy is one of the treatment options available, and involves removing the prostate gland and surrounding tissues. In recent years, surgeons have begun to use robot-assisted radical prostatectomy more frequently. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and harms of the robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) compared with the open and laparoscopic surgical methods. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in Ontario.
METHODS
We performed a literature search and included prospective comparative studies that examined robot-assisted versus open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The outcomes of interest were perioperative, functional, and oncological. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 1-year time horizon. The potential long-term benefits of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for functional and oncological outcomes were also evaluated in a 10-year Markov model in scenario analyses. In addition, we conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the additional costs to the provincial budget if the adoption of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were to increase in the next 5 years. A needs assessment determined that the published literature on patient perspectives was relatively well developed, and that direct patient engagement would add relatively little new information.
RESULTS
Compared with the open approach, we found robot-assisted radical prostatectomy reduced length of stay and blood loss (moderate quality evidence) but had no difference or inconclusive results for functional and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy had no difference in perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with open radical prostatectomy, our best estimates suggested that robot-assisted prostatectomy was associated with higher costs ($6,234) and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.0012). The best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5.2 million per QALY gained. However, if robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were assumed to have substantially better long-term functional and oncological outcomes, the ICER might be as low as $83,921 per QALY gained. We estimated the annual budget impact to be $0.8 million to $3.4 million over the next 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no high-quality evidence that robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves functional and oncological outcomes compared with open and laparoscopic approaches. However, compared with open radical prostatectomy, the costs of using the robotic system are relatively large while the health benefits are relatively small.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 28744334
DOI: No ID Found -
Yonsei Medical Journal Sep 2016To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies.
RESULTS
A total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up.
CONCLUSION
RARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.
Topics: Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 27401648
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2016.57.5.1165 -
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine Dec 2023Interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia have evolved from transurethral resection of the prostate and simple prostatectomy to a myriad of office-based and... (Review)
Review
Interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia have evolved from transurethral resection of the prostate and simple prostatectomy to a myriad of office-based and operating-room procedures. The contemporary approach involves matching the right procedure to the right patient, choosing on the basis of prostate characteristics, patient preference, and urologist expertise. This review details currently available and guideline-backed surgical and procedural treatments.
Topics: Male; Humans; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Laser Therapy; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 38040442
DOI: 10.3949/ccjm.90a.23026 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2022To report the prevalence of the definitions used to identify post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and to compare the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To report the prevalence of the definitions used to identify post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and to compare the rates of PPI over time under different criteria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In the period from January 1, 2000, until December 31, 2017, we used a recently described methodology to perform evidence acquisition called reverse systematic review (RSR). The continence definition and rates were evaluated and compared at 1, 3, 6, 12, and >18 months post-operative. Moreover, the RSR showed the "natural history" of PPI after LRP.
RESULTS
We identified 353 review articles in the systematized search, 137 studies about PPI were selected for data collection, and finally were included 203 reports (nr) with 51.436 patients. The most used criterion of continence was No pad (nr=121; 59.6%), the second one was Safety pad (nr=57; 28.1%). A statistically significant difference between continence criteria was identified only at >18 months (p=0.044). From 2013 until the end of our analysis, the Safety pad and Others became the most reported.
CONCLUSION
RSR revealed the "natural history" of PPI after the LRP technique, and showed that through time the Safety pad concept was mainly used. However, paradoxically, we demonstrated that the two most utilized criteria, Safety pad and No pad, had similar PPI outcomes. Further effort should be made to standardize the PPI denomination to evaluate, compare and discuss the urinary post-operatory function.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 35168312
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0632