-
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 -
Current Oncology (Toronto, Ont.) Apr 2023In 2018, the da Vinci Single Port (SP) robotic system was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for urologic procedures. Available studies for the application... (Review)
Review
In 2018, the da Vinci Single Port (SP) robotic system was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for urologic procedures. Available studies for the application of SP to prostate cancer surgery are limited. The aim of our study is to summarize the current evidence on the techniques and outcomes of SP robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARLP) procedures. A narrative review of the literature was performed in January 2023. Preliminary results suggest that SP-RALP is safe and feasible, and it can offer comparable outcomes to the standard multiport RALP. Extraperitoneal and transvesical SP-RALP appear to be the two most promising approaches, as they offer decreased invasiveness, potentially shorter length of stay, and better pain control. Long-term, high-quality data are missing and further validation with prospective studies across different sites is required.
Topics: Male; Humans; Prospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Prostatic Neoplasms; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 37185441
DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30040328 -
International Journal of Surgery... May 2023Due to the lack of sufficient evidence, it is not clear whether robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) is better for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
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.
Topics: Humans; Male; Laparoscopy; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37070788
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000193 -
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 -
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Mar 2022Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) is a novel surgical procedure for the management of obstructive symptoms caused by enlarged prostate glands. Before the...
PURPOSE
Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) is a novel surgical procedure for the management of obstructive symptoms caused by enlarged prostate glands. Before the introduction of minimally invasive techniques, the standard approach was the open simple prostatectomy (OSP). The aim of our study was to compare intraoperative and perioperative outcomes of robotic (RASP) and laparoscopic (LSP) simple prostatectomy.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent minimally invasive simple prostatectomy at the Urological Department of Portogruaro Hospital, Portogruaro, and at the Urological Department of "San Bassiano" Hospital, in Bassano del Grappa, from March 2015 to December 2020. Data collected from medical records included age, body mass index, prostate volume, operative time, preoperative International Prostatic Symptoms Score (IPSS), postoperative IPSS, time with drainage, blood transfusion, intraoperative complications, perioperative complications and length of hospital stay.
RESULTS
Robotic-assisted (n = 25) and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (n = 25) were performed with a transvesical approach. No significant differences were observed regarding baseline characteristics, body mass index, prostate volume and IPSS. Operative time was lower in the laparoscopic group (122 min vs 139 min) (p = 0.024), while hospital stay was lower in the robotic group (4 days vs 6 days) (p = 0.047).
CONCLUSIONS
Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy is a safe technique with results comparable to laparoscopic simple prostatectomy, encompassing the advantage of a shorter hospitalization. Considering the costs and the limited availability of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy, laparoscopic simple prostatectomy is a valid and safe alternative for experienced surgeons.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35352523
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2022.1.37 -
Revista Da Associacao Medica Brasileira... Aug 2017Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition in adult men and its incidence increases progressively with aging. It has an important impact on the... (Review)
Review
Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common condition in adult men and its incidence increases progressively with aging. It has an important impact on the individual's physical and mental health and its natural progression can lead to serious pathological situations. Although the initial treatment is pharmacological, except in specific situations, the tendency of disease progression causes a considerable portion of the patients to require surgical treatment. In this case, there are several options available today in the therapeutic armamentarium. Among the options, established techniques, such as open surgery and endoscopic resection using monopolar energy, still prevail in the choice of surgeons because they are more accessible, both from a socioeconomic standpoint in the vast majority of medical services and in terms of training of medical teams. On the other hand, new techniques and technologies arise sequentially in order to minimize aggression, surgical time, recovery and complications, optimizing results related to the efficacy/safety dyad. Each of these techniques has its own peculiarities regarding availability due to cost, learning curve and scientific consolidation in order to achieve recognition as a cutting-edge method in the medical field. The use of bipolar energy in endoscopic resection of the prostate, laser vaporization and enucleation techniques, and videolaparoscopy are examples of new options that have successfully traced this path. Robot-assisted surgery has gained a lot of space in the last decade, but it still needs to dodge the trade barrier. Other techniques and technologies will need to pass the test of time to be able to conquer their space in this growing market.
Topics: Disease Progression; Humans; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia
PubMed: 28977110
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.63.08.711 -
Cancer Medicine Dec 2020We aimed to determine patterns in frequency of radiotherapy for prostate cancer and definitive surgical management. There is prospective evidence indicating benefits of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
We aimed to determine patterns in frequency of radiotherapy for prostate cancer and definitive surgical management. There is prospective evidence indicating benefits of radiotherapy for some patients after radical prostatectomy (prostatectomy), with recent evidence suggesting benefit of early salvage radiotherapy. Trends in postoperative radiotherapy have not been elucidated. We analyzed the National Cancer Database for prostate cancer patients treated with curative-intent therapy between 2004 and 2016. Patients were risk stratified according to NCCN treatment guidelines. Linear regression was utilized to examine trends in treatment with initial prostatectomy and trends in postoperative radiotherapy among treatment risk groups. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to examine clinical-demographic variables associated with prostatectomy and postoperative radiotherapy. From 2004 to 2016, 508,450 patients received prostatectomy and 370,314 received radiotherapy. Median age was 63.6 years. There was increased utilization of prostatectomy from 47.9% in 2004 to 61.3% in 2016 (p <0.001). 24,466 cases received postoperative radiotherapy. Similarly, postoperative radiotherapy utilization increased from 2.2% in 2004 to 4.0% in 2016 (p <0.001). The subgroup with the largest increase in postoperative radiotherapy was clinically high-risk disease (5.3% in 2004 to 7.8% in 2016 (p <0.001). Clinical high-risk disease (OR 1.751), Gleason 9-10 (OR 2.973), and PSA >20 ng/ml (OR 1.489) were factors predictive for postoperative radiotherapy. The proportion of prostate cancer patients who undergo definitive prostatectomy and postoperative radiotherapy is increasing. This increase is greatest in high-risk cases. Overall, the proportion of patients who receive any radiotherapy is decreasing. Association with preclinical factors suggests optimization of patient selection should be considered.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Clinical Decision-Making; Databases, Factual; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiotherapy, Adjuvant; Retrospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33128858
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.3482 -
Investigative and Clinical Urology Mar 2016The first urologic robotic program in the world was built at the Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital Detroit, Michigan, in 2000 under the vision of surgical... (Review)
Review
The first urologic robotic program in the world was built at the Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Hospital Detroit, Michigan, in 2000 under the vision of surgical innovator, Dr. Mani Menon for the radical prostatectomy. The robot-assisted radical prostatectomy continues being modified with techniques to improve perioperative and surgical outcomes. The application of robotic surgical technique has since been expanded to the bladder and upper urinary tract surgery. The evolution of surgical technique and its expansion of application will continue to improve quality, outcome parameters and experience for the patients.
Topics: Cystectomy; Humans; Prostatectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Urinary Tract; Urologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 26981588
DOI: 10.4111/icu.2016.57.2.75