-
Journal of Robotic Surgery Dec 2023To compare perioperative outcomes between Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and robotic-assisted simple pasta-ectomy (RASP)for large-volume benign... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of transurethral thulium laser enucleation versus robot-assisted prostatectomy for large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
To compare perioperative outcomes between Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and robotic-assisted simple pasta-ectomy (RASP)for large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia(> 80 ml). In August 2023, we undertook a comprehensive search of major global databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar, focusing solely on articles written in English. Studies that were merely reviews or protocols without any specific published data were omitted. Furthermore, articles that comprised conference abstracts or content not pertinent to our subject of study were also disregarded. To calculate the inverse variances and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables' mean differences, we employed the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel approach along with random-effects models. The findings were denoted in the form of odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. A p-value less than 0.05 was deemed to indicate statistical significance. Our finalized meta-analysis incorporated six articles, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and five cohort studies. These studies accounted for a total of 1218 patients, 944 of whom underwent Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate (HoLEP) and 274 who underwent Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy (RASP). The pooled analysis from these six papers demonstrated that compared to RASP, HoLEP had a shorter hospital stay, shorter catheterization duration, and a lower blood transfusion rate. Moreover, HoLEP patients exhibited a smaller reduction in postoperative hemoglobin levels. Statistically, there were no significant differences between the two procedures regarding operative time, postoperative PSA, the weight of prostate specimens, IPSS, Qmax, PVR, QoL, and postoperative complications. (HoLEP) and (RASP) are both effective and safe procedures for treating large-volume benign prostatic hyperplasia. HoLEP, with its benefits of shorter catheterization and hospitalization duration, lesser decline in postoperative hemoglobin, and reduced blood transfusion needs, stands as a preferred choice for treating extensive prostate enlargement. However, further validation through more high-quality clinical randomized trials is required.
Topics: Humans; Male; Hemoglobins; Laser Therapy; Lasers, Solid-State; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Thulium; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37731152
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01715-7 -
Learning curves in laparoscopic and robot-assisted prostate surgery: a systematic search and review.World Journal of Urology Apr 2022To perform a systematic search and review of the available literature on the learning curves (LCs) in laparoscopic and robot-assisted prostate surgery. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic search and review of the available literature on the learning curves (LCs) in laparoscopic and robot-assisted prostate surgery.
METHODS
Medline was systematically searched from 1946 to January 2021 to detect all studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, reporting on the LC in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RSP).
RESULTS
In total, 47 studies were included for qualitative synthesis evaluating a single technique (LRP, RARP, LSP, RSP; 45 studies) or two techniques (LRP and RARP; 2 studies). All studies evaluated outcomes on real patients. RARP was the most widely investigated technique (30 studies), followed by LRP (17 studies), LSP (1 study), and RSP (1 study). In LRP, the reported LC based on operative time; estimated blood loss; length of hospital stay; positive surgical margin; biochemical recurrence; overall complication rate; and urinary continence rate ranged 40-250, 80-250, 58-200, 50-350, 110-350, 55-250, 70-350 cases, respectively. In RARP, the corresponding ranges were 16-300, 20-300, 25-200, 50-400, 40-100, 20-250, 30-200, while LC for potency rates was 80-90 cases.
CONCLUSIONS
The definition of LC for laparoscopic and robot-assisted prostate surgery is not well defined with various metrics used among studies. Nevertheless, LCs appear to be steep and continuous. Implementation of training programs/standardization of the techniques is necessary to improve outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Learning Curve; Male; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34480591
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03815-1 -
European Urology May 2009Despite the wide diffusion of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), only few studies comparing the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
CONTEXT
Despite the wide diffusion of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), only few studies comparing the results of these techniques with the retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) are currently available.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the perioperative, functional, and oncologic results in the comparative studies evaluating RRP, LRP, and RALP.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the literature was performed in January 2008, searching Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. A "free-text" protocol using the term radical prostatectomy was applied. Some 4000 records were retrieved from the Medline database; 2265 records were retrieved from the Embase database;, and 4219 records were retrieved from the Web of Science database. Three of the authors reviewed the records to identify comparative studies. A cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager software v.4.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Thirty-seven comparative studies were identified in the literature search, including a single, randomised, controlled trial. With regard to the perioperative outcome, LRP and RALP were more time consuming than RRP, especially in the initial steps of the learning curve, but blood loss, transfusion rates, catheterisation time, hospitalisation duration, and complication rates all favoured LRP. With regard to the functional results, LRP and RRP showed similar continence and potency rates. Similarly, no significant differences were identified between LRP and RALP, while a single, nonrandomised, prospective study suggested advantages in terms of both continence and potency recovery after RALP, compared with RRP. With regard to the oncologic outcome, LRP and RALP were associated with positive surgical margin rates similar to those of RRP.
CONCLUSIONS
The quality of the available comparative studies was not excellent. LRP and RALP are followed by significantly lower blood loss and transfusion rates, but the available data were not sufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of functional and oncologic outcomes. Further high-quality, prospective, multicentre, comparative studies are needed.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Risk Assessment; Robotics; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence; Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male
PubMed: 19185977
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036 -
Urologia Internationalis 2014Despite the wide diffusion of minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), few studies compare the results... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Despite the wide diffusion of minimally invasive approaches, such as laparoscopic (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), few studies compare the results of these techniques with the retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) approach. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes and cost-effectiveness of RRP, LRP, and RALP.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed in the PubMed and Embase databases in December 2013. A 'free-text' protocol using the term 'radical prostatectomy' was applied. A total of 16,085 records were found. The authors reviewed the records to identify comparative studies to include in the review.
RESULTS
44 comparative studies were identified. With regard to the perioperative outcome, LRP and RALP were more time-consuming than RRP, but blood loss, transfusion rates, catheterisation time, hospitalisation duration, and complication rates were the most optimal in the laparoscopic approaches. With regard to the functional and oncological results, RALP was found to have the best outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Our study confirmed the well-known perioperative advantage of minimally invasive techniques; however, available data were not sufficient to prove the superiority of any surgical approach in terms of functional and oncologic outcomes. On the contrary, cost comparison clearly supports RRP.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Care Costs; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Risk Factors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25277444
DOI: 10.1159/000366008 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Mar 2014Open simple prostatectomy (OSP) is an effective treatment for patients with symptomatic BPH and larger volume prostates; however, it is associated with substantial risks... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Open simple prostatectomy (OSP) is an effective treatment for patients with symptomatic BPH and larger volume prostates; however, it is associated with substantial risks of bleeding, transfusion and prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS). Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) potentially offers improved perioperative outcomes for these patients. We systematically reviewed published data on RASP outcomes and analyzed our experience at the University of California San Diego (UCSD). We identified eight published studies, all non-comparative case series (Level 3 evidence), reporting a total of 109 RASP cases from 2008 to 2012. Indications included acute urinary retention (n=48), persistent obstructive symptoms (n=51), failure of medical management (n=9) and recurrent urinary tract infections (n=2). The mean ages ranged from 65 to 77 years. More than 75% of the studies reported a mean LOS <3 days and a transfusion prevalence of 0%. The mean resected prostate weights ranged from 51 to 301 g. For UCSD, indications for surgery included urinary retention (n=11) and failure of medical management (n=5). The mean age was 68 years, transfusion prevalence 0%, mean resected prostate weight 94 g and mean LOS 1 day. All nine series observed substantial postoperative improvements in urinary symptoms and retention. These data suggest that RASP is a safe and efficacious treatment for BPH in select patients with larger prostates. Although LOS and transfusion prevalence for RASP are markedly lower than the published OSP series, comparative studies are needed to verify these results.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; California; Comorbidity; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Universities
PubMed: 24323329
DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2013.52 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Erectile dysfunction may affect 30% to 50% of men aged 40 to 70 years, with age, smoking, and obesity being the main risk factors, although 20% of cases have... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Erectile dysfunction may affect 30% to 50% of men aged 40 to 70 years, with age, smoking, and obesity being the main risk factors, although 20% of cases have psychological causes.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of phosphodiesterase inhibitors in men with erectile dysfunction of any cause? What are the effects of phosphodiesterase inhibitors on erectile dysfunction in men with diabetes, with cardiovascular disease, with spinal cord injury, and with prostate cancer or undergoing prostatectomy? What are the effects of drug treatments other than phosphodiesterase inhibitors in men with erectile dysfunction of any cause? What are the effects of devices, psychological/behavioural treatments, and alternative treatments in men with erectile dysfunction of any cause? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to August 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 81 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alprostadil (intracavernosal, intraurethral, topical), cognitive behavioural therapy, ginseng, papaverine, papaverine plus phentolamine (bimix), papaverine plus phentolamine plus alprostadil (trimix), penile prostheses, phosphodiesterase inhibitors (sildenafil, tadalafil, vardenafil), psychosexual counselling, vacuum devices, and yohimbine.
Topics: Double-Blind Method; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors; Prostatectomy; Sildenafil Citrate; Tadalafil
PubMed: 21711956
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Urology :... Mar 2013Medline and Embase were searched for studies comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with open prostatectomy and conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy. Random... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Medline and Embase were searched for studies comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with open prostatectomy and conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate a pooled estimate of effect. The 95% prediction intervals are also reported. One randomized study and 50 observational studies were identified. The results show that compared with open surgery, robot-assisted surgery is associated with fewer positive surgical margins for pT2 tumors (relative risk 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.81, P < 0.001) and improved outcomes for sexual function at 12 months (relative risk 1.60, 95% confidence interval 1.33-1.93, P = <0.001), and, to a lesser extent, urinary function at 12 months (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.11, P < 0.01). Compared with conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy, robot-assisted surgery is associated with a slight increase in urinary function at 12 months (relative risk 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.17, P = 0.013). The overall methodological quality of the included studies was low, with high levels of heterogeneity. The use of prediction intervals as an aid to decision making in regard to the introduction of this technology is examined. Clinically significant improvements in positive surgical margins rates for pT2 tumors and sexual function at 12 months associated with robot-assisted surgery in comparison with open surgery should be interpreted with caution given the limitations of the evidence. Differences between robot-assisted and conventional laparoscopic surgery are minimal.
Topics: Confidence Intervals; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Neoplasm, Residual; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Recovery of Function; Robotics; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 23311943
DOI: 10.1111/iju.12070 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Apr 2023Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been traditionally performed at a pneumoperitoneum insufflation pressure of 12-15 mmHg. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been traditionally performed at a pneumoperitoneum insufflation pressure of 12-15 mmHg. This meta-analysis and systematic review aims to assess the current evidence comparing lower to standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in RARP. Systematic searches of MEDLINE, COCHRANE, SCOPUS and EMBASE were performed to identify articles published up until November 2021 comparing lower pressure with standard pressure pneumoperitoneum in RARP. Standard pressure was defined as > 12 mmHg and lower pressure ≤ 12 mmHg. Estimated blood loss, length of operation, length of hospital stay, post-operative ileus, 30-day readmissions, Clavien-Dindo complications and rate of positive surgical margins were extracted as endpoints of interest. Our searches identified 165 abstracts of which 4 articles with 1319 patients were eligible. Cumulative analysis demonstrated reduced length of stay when a lower pressure was used: WMD - 0.23 (- 0.45 to - 0.02) days (p = 0.03) as well as a reduced rate of post-operative ileus: OR 0.41 (0.22 to 0.77) (p = 0.006). There was no significant increase in length of operation WMD - 1.79 (- 15.96 to 12.38) (p = 0.8), estimated blood loss WMD - 2.89 (- 29.41 to 23.62) (p = 0.83), 30-day readmissions or positive surgical margins OR 1.04 (0.78 to 1.38) (p = 0.81) and RD - 0.01 (- 0.04 to 0.01) (p = 0.3) when using a lower pressure. We have demonstrated reduced length of stay and rates of post-operative ileus, when performing RARP at a lower pressure without a significant increase in length of operation, estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins or complications. The recommendation to use lower pressure pneumoperitoneum is moderate to weak and more randomised control trials are required to validate these results.
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Insufflation; Pneumoperitoneum; Margins of Excision; Treatment Outcome; Operative Time; Prostatectomy; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Ileus
PubMed: 35861890
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01445-2 -
Journal of Robotic Surgery Apr 2022We aim to evaluate the differences in peri-operative characteristics, surgical complications, and oncological and functional control between the extraperitoneal RARP... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We aim to evaluate the differences in peri-operative characteristics, surgical complications, and oncological and functional control between the extraperitoneal RARP (EP-RARP) and transperitoneal RARP (TP-RARP). A comprehensive database search was performed up to March 2021 for eligible studies comparing outcomes between EP-RARP versus TP-RARP. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed to control for heterogeneity and risk of bias. A total of 16 studies were included with 3897 patients, including 2201 (56.5%) EP-RARPs and 1696 (43.5%) TP-RARPs. When compared to TP-RARP, EP-RARP offers faster operative time (MD - 14.4 min; 95% CI - 26.3, - 2.3), decreased length of post-operative stay (MD - 0.9 days, 95% CI - 1.3, - 0.4), and decreased rates of post-operative ileus (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.7) and inguinal hernia formation (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.5). There were no significant differences in total complications, estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins, or continence at 6 months. In this review, EP-RARP delivered similar oncological and functional outcomes, while also offering faster operative time, decreased length of post-operative stay, and decreased rates of post-operative ileus and inguinal hernia formation when compared to TP-RARP. These findings provide evidence-based data for surgical approach optimization and prompts future research to examine whether these findings hold true with recent advances in single-port RARP and outpatient RARP.
Topics: Humans; Male; Margins of Excision; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33905056
DOI: 10.1007/s11701-021-01245-0 -
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica = the... Feb 2019Cytreductive prostatectomy is an experimental surgical approach to metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa), with the scope of improving local symptoms and potentially...
INTRODUCTION
Cytreductive prostatectomy is an experimental surgical approach to metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa), with the scope of improving local symptoms and potentially ameliorate oncologic outcomes. Aim of the current systematic review is to analyze available evidence to support this approach and explore published data a future trial on cytoreductive prostatectomy.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review was conducted searching all relevant studies published in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Ovid database until August 1, 2018. A search was performed including the combination of following words: "cytoreductive" AND "prostatectomy" AND "prostate" AND "cancer"). Of the 49 initial papers identified, 28 were excluded after screening by the authors, leaving 21 articles eligible for the review.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
In vitro and in vivo models support the concept of removing the primary tumor, considered a "sanctuary site," in order to reduce the metastatic potential of prostate cancer. Large retrospective population studies have reported improved oncologic outcomes for men undergoing cytoreductive prostatectomy, though such results are limited by the retrospective design and major selection biases. Little evidence from well designed prospective trials is available, yet a net improvement of overall survival has not been reported. Nonetheless, most studies reported a reduction of local complications after cytoreductive prostatectomy (<10%) compared to best systemic therapy (25-30%). Prospective randomized trials are underway: their results will help elucidate the true impact of cytoreductive prostatectomy on oncologic outcomes of mPCa.
CONCLUSIONS
Although supported from a biological point of view and albeit encouraging results of population-based studies, cytoreductive remains to date experimental. A true benefit on overall survival of mPCa is not supported by current evidence. The results of prospective trials are eagerly awaited.
Topics: Cytoreduction Surgical Procedures; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 30547907
DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03319-2