-
Translational Andrology and Urology Dec 2020Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common treatment choice for localized prostate cancer. While there is increasing utilisation of robotic assisted RP in some centres, open... (Review)
Review
Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common treatment choice for localized prostate cancer. While there is increasing utilisation of robotic assisted RP in some centres, open RP (ORP) remains well established and commonly performed in many parts of the world. The goals of modern ORP are to remove the prostate with negative surgical margins, while minimising blood loss and preserving urinary continence and erectile function. We present a technical review of ORP incorporating contemporary techniques for control of the deep venous complex, additional haemostatic measures, nerve-sparing and vesicourethral reconstruction.
PubMed: 33457276
DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.09.15 -
European Urology Jul 2021Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) still remains under... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Prostatic Artery Embolisation Versus Transurethral Resection of the Prostate for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: 2-yr Outcomes of a Randomised, Open-label, Single-centre Trial.
BACKGROUND
Prostatic artery embolisation (PAE) for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms secondary to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO) still remains under investigation.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of PAE and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the treatment of LUTS/BPO at 2 yr of follow-up.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A randomised, open-label trial was conducted. There were 103 participants aged ≥40 yr with refractory LUTS/BPO.
INTERVENTION
PAE versus TURP.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS) and other questionnaires, functional measures, prostate volume, and adverse events were evaluated. Changes from baseline to 2 yr were tested for differences between the two interventions with standard two-sided tests.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
The mean reduction in IPSS after 2 yr was 9.21 points after PAE and 12.09 points after TURP (difference of 2.88 [95% confidence interval 0.04-5.72]; p = 0.047). Superiority of TURP was also found for most other patient-reported outcomes except for erectile function. PAE was less effective than TURP regarding the improvement of maximum urinary flow rate (3.9 vs 10.23 ml/s, difference of -6.33 [-10.12 to -2.54]; p < 0.001), reduction of postvoid residual urine (62.1 vs 204.0 ml; 141.91 [43.31-240.51]; p = 0.005), and reduction of prostate volume (10.66 vs 30.20 ml; 19.54 [7.70-31.38]; p = 0.005). Adverse events were less frequent after PAE than after TURP (total occurrence n = 43 vs 78, p = 0.005), but the distribution among severity classes was similar. Ten patients (21%) who initially underwent PAE required TURP within 2 yr due to unsatisfying clinical outcomes, which prevented further assessment of their outcomes and, therefore, represents a limitation of the study.
CONCLUSIONS
Inferior improvements in LUTS/BPO and a relevant re-treatment rate are found 2 yr after PAE compared with TURP. PAE is associated with fewer complications than TURP. The disadvantages of PAE regarding functional outcomes should be considered for patient selection and counselling.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Prostatic artery embolisation is safe and effective. However, compared with transurethral resection of the prostate, its disadvantages regarding subjective and objective outcomes should be considered for individual treatment choices.
Topics: Arteries; Embolization, Therapeutic; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33612376
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.008 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2020Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include... (Review)
Review
Contemporary minimally invasive surgical (MIS) treatment options of patients with male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) in men with prostate glands >80 mL include Holmium Laser Enucleation Prostate (HoLEP), Thulium laser VapoEnucleation Prostate (ThuVEP), and Laparoscopic (LSP) or Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP). Implementing new laser technologies is costly, and the steep learning curve of these laser techniques limit their wide range use. This promoted the use of LSP and RASP in centers with readily established laparoscopy or robotic surgery programs. The aim of this study is to review case and comparative series of RASP. We systematically reviewed published data from 2008 to 2020 on RASP and have identified 26 non-comparative and 9 comparative case series. RASP has longer operation time but less time spent in hospital and less blood loss. The outcomes of improvements in symptom score, post-voiding residual urine (PVR), postoperative PSA decline, complications, and cost are similar when compared to open and laser enucleation techniques. These outcomes position RASP as a viable MIS treatment option for patients with male LUTS needing surgical treatment for enlarged prostates. Nevertheless, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with multicenter and large sample size are needed to confirm the findings of this systematic review.
PubMed: 32527020
DOI: 10.3390/jcm9061798 -
Translational Andrology and Urology May 2021Radical prostatectomy (RP) has undergone a remarkable transformation from open to minimally-invasive surgery over the last two decades. However, it is important to... (Review)
Review
Radical prostatectomy (RP) has undergone a remarkable transformation from open to minimally-invasive surgery over the last two decades. However, it is important to recognize there is still conflicting evidence regarding key outcomes. We aimed to summarize current literature on comparative effectiveness of robotic and open RP for key outcomes including oncologic results, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measures, safety and postoperative complications, and healthcare costs. The bulk of the paper will discuss and interpret limitations of current data. Finally, we will also highlight future directions of both surgical approaches and its potential impact on health care delivery.
PubMed: 34159098
DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.12.01 -
JAMA Network Open Sep 2023Stratifying patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for prostate cancer based on the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) is...
IMPORTANCE
Stratifying patients with biochemical recurrence (BCR) after primary treatment for prostate cancer based on the risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM) is essential for determining the need for further testing and treatments.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association of BCR after radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy and its current risk stratification with PCSM.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This population-based cohort study included a total of 16 311 male patients with 10 364 (64%) undergoing radical prostatectomy and 5947 (36%) undergoing radiotherapy with curative intent (cT1-3, cM0) and PSA follow-up in Stockholm, Sweden, between 2003 and 2019. Follow-up for all patients was until death, emigration, or end of the study (ie, December 31, 2018). Data were analyzed between September 2022 and March 2023.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcomes of the study were the cumulative incidence of BCR and PCSM. Patients with BCR were stratified in low- and high-risk according to European Association of Urology (EAU) criteria.
EXPOSURES
Radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy.
RESULTS
A total of 16 311 patients were included. Median (IQR) age was 64 (59-68) years in the radical prostatectomy cohort (10 364 patients) and 69 (64-73) years in the radiotherapy cohort (5947 patients). Median (IQR) follow-up for survivors was 88 (55-138) months and 89 (53-134) months, respectively. Following radical prostatectomy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 16% (95% CI, 15%-18%) for the 4024 patients in the low D'Amico risk group, 30% (95% CI, 27%-32%) for the 5239 patients in the intermediate D'Amico risk group, and 46% (95% CI, 42%-51%) for 1101 patients in the high D'Amico risk group. Following radiotherapy, the 15-year cumulative incidences of BCR were 18% (95% CI, 15%-21%) for the 1230 patients in the low-risk group, 24% (95% CI, 21%-26%) for the 2355 patients in the intermediate-risk group, and 36% (95% CI, 33%-39%) for the 2362 patients in the high-risk group. The 10-year cumulative incidences of PCSM after radical prostatectomy were 4% (95% CI, 2%-6%) for the 1101 patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR and 9% (95% CI, 5%-13%) for 649 patients who developed high-risk EAU-BCR. After radiotherapy, the 10-year PCSM cumulative incidences were 24% (95% CI, 19%-29%) for the 591 patients in the low-risk EAU-BCR category and 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%) for the 600 patients in the high-risk EAU-BCR category.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings suggest the validity of EAU-BCR stratification system. However, while the risk of dying from prostate cancer in low-risk EAU-BCR after radical prostatectomy was very low, patients who developed low-risk EAU-BCR after radiotherapy had a nonnegligible risk of prostate cancer mortality. Improving risk stratification of patients with BCR is pivotal to guide salvage treatment decisions, reduce overtreatment, and limit the number of staging tests in the event of PSA elevations after primary treatment.
Topics: Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Aged; Cohort Studies; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 37695584
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.32900 -
Research and Reports in Urology 2021There are only a few case reports and case series that investigated combined laparoscopic or robotic surgery for simultaneous prostate and kidney cancer. In this study,...
PURPOSE
There are only a few case reports and case series that investigated combined laparoscopic or robotic surgery for simultaneous prostate and kidney cancer. In this study, we want to close a gap in existing research to assess the feasibility and oncological outcome of combined open prostatectomy and kidney surgery.
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent a combined open prostatectomy and either a partial or complete nephrectomy from 2013 to 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to assess perioperative parameters and the 12-month functional and oncological outcomes after combined surgery.
RESULTS
We identified 10 patients undergoing combined open surgery. Partial nephrectomy was performed in 4, radical nephrectomy in 6 patients. For prostate cancer, histopathological analysis showed a tumor stage ≥ pT2c in all 10 patients. For renal tumors, histopathological analysis showed clear cell renal cell carcinoma in 8 patients and oncocytoma in 2 patients. Operating time was 177 ± 36 minutes. Two perioperative complications (Clavien 2a and 3) were observed. Three months postoperatively, the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score was 5.6 ± 5.9, the ICIQ-SF score was 7.3 ± 5.6 and were using 1.9 ± 2.2 pads per day. This improved after 12 months postoperatively, as patients had an IIEF-5 score of 6.33 ± 6.5, an ICIQ-SF score of 4.4 ± 5.7 and were using pads 0.9 ± 1.7 per day.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we showed that open surgery is a safe and valid approach for combined prostatectomy and renal surgery with acceptable complications and oncological outcomes. The combined open approach could be a good alternative to combined laparoscopic/robotic surgery in this field, especially to treat patients with advanced renal tumors or previous abdominal surgery or radiation.
PubMed: 34849371
DOI: 10.2147/RRU.S341823 -
Prostate International Mar 2021In the present study, we aim to provide more evidence about benefits of salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP). Our main objective is to assess prostatic-specific antigen...
INTRODUCTION
In the present study, we aim to provide more evidence about benefits of salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP). Our main objective is to assess prostatic-specific antigen control and postoperative urinary incontinence in open and robotic approaches as primary outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
After the Institutional Review Board approval (IRB00010193), we retrospectively analyzed 76 consecutive patients who underwent open or robot-assisted SRP for locally relapsed prostate cancer between 2004 and 2019 at the Urology Department of Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Data were collected from our electronic medical record and prospective database.Postoperative variables, such as urinary incontinence, erectile function preservation, and vesicourethral anastomosis stricture development, were analyzed.
RESULTS
Before SRP, 59 patients (76.6%) were treated with 3D external beam radiotherapy, 11 (14.3%) with brachytherapy, and 6 (7.8%) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Fifty patients underwent open SRP, and 26, robot-assisted SRP. Comparing surgical approaches, the global incontinence rate was 34.2% versus 9.1% in open versus robot-assisted approach, respectively (p: 0.01).Vesicourethral anastomosis stricture occurred in six patients (8.7%), all in the open approach group (p: 0.07). Five patients of 69 (7.2%) preserved erectile function with/without use of phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors. Two patients in the open approach group needed blood transfusion. Estimated 2-year biochemical recurrence-free survival rate in the open approach group and robot-assisted group was 67% (95% confidence interval: 53.7-80.3) and 60.9% (95% confidence interval: 40.5-81.3), respectively, with no statistical difference (log-rank test p: 0.873).
CONCLUSIONS
Robot-assisted SRP is a reliable procedure to treat local recurrences after external beam radiotherapy or brachytherapy, reducing the risk of anastomotic strictures and blood loss and improving continence outcomes.
PubMed: 33912513
DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2020.07.003 -
European Urology Open Science Oct 2022The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
The advantages of minimally invasive surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP) have been demonstrated in a number of systematic reviews (SRs). However, the rigorous study selection process for SR means that a lot of information can be excluded, leading to a very specific clinical scenario that is often unrepresentative of real life. Our new reverse SR methodology generates a heterogeneous population database that covers a wide range of clinical scenarios.
OBJECTIVE
To compare perioperative surgical results and complications for open retropubic RP (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted RP (RARP) in a reverse SR.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Eight databases were searched for SRs on RRP, LRP, or RARP between 2000 and 2020 (80 SRs). All references used in these SRs were captured for analysis (1724 articles). Perioperative outcomes and complications were compared among the RRP, LRP, and RARP approaches.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
We identified 559 (32.4%) reports on RRP, 413 (23.9%) on LRP, and 752 (43.7%) on RARP, involving 1 353 485 patients overall. RARP showed a significantly higher annual volume of surgery per surgeon (AVSS) in comparison to RRP and LRP (mean 64.29, 43.26, and 41.47, respectively), a higher percentage of low-risk patients (prostate-specific antigen <10 ng/ml, Gleason <7, stage
CONCLUSIONS
Our reverse SR involved a wide real-life representative sample and reference values established in the literature and revealed that minimally invasive surgery had the best perioperative and complication results, especially RARP, which was associated with less complex cases, higher annual surgeon volume, and greater performance.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We used a wide sample representative of real-life surgical practice and reference values established in the literature for three techniques for removal of the prostate to guide patients and physicians in deciding the best surgical treatment for prostate cancer according to availability.
PubMed: 36110904
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.08.015 -
Canadian Urological Association Journal... Mar 2021The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an enhanced care pathway on length of stay (LOS) for open radical prostatectomy (RP) given that robotic-assisted...
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an enhanced care pathway on length of stay (LOS) for open radical prostatectomy (RP) given that robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is not available to all patients in Canada.
METHODS
A retrospective review was conducted of all RPs performed. An enhanced care pathway was established for RPs in 2011. Patients were compared in the period before (2005-2010) and after (2011-2019) the introduction of the pathway.
RESULTS
During the study period, 581 RPs were performed by a single surgeon with a median followup of 66.9 months (range 3-176). A total of 211 (36.3%) RPs were performed from 2005-2010, while 370 (63.9%) were performed from 2011-2019. The median age at RP was 65 years (range 44-81). Following the introduction of an enhanced care pathway, there were significant decreases in intraoperative blood loss (350 ml vs. 200 ml; p=0.0001) and the use of surgical drains (90% vs. 9.5%; p=0.0001). The median LOS over the whole study period was one day (range 1-7), which significantly decreased with the enhanced care pathway (3 vs. 1 day; p=0.0001). Since introducing the enhanced care pathway in 2011, 344 (93%) patients were discharged day 1 following surgery. There were no differences in post-discharge presentations to the emergency department (5.7% vs. 9%; p=0.15) or 30-day readmission rates (3.8% vs. 3.8%; p=1.00).
CONCLUSIONS
A single-night stay for open RP is safe and achievable for most patients. A dedicated, multifaceted pathway is required to attain targets for a safe and timely discharge.
PubMed: 32807288
DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.6600 -
Robotic Surgery (Auckland) 2019Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.
RESULTS
We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).
CONCLUSION
Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.
PubMed: 31921934
DOI: 10.2147/RSRR.S186768