-
International Wound Journal Jan 2024In this article, we analysed the therapeutic efficacy of open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) after operation for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In this article, we analysed the therapeutic efficacy of open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) after operation for the treatment of post-operation complications. In summary, because of the broad methodology of the available trials and the low number of trials, the data were limited. The investigators combined the results of six of the 211 original studies. We looked up 4 databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. A total of six publications were selected. The main result was the rate of post-operation wound complications. Secondary results were the time of operation and the duration of hospitalization. Our findings indicate that the minimal invasive operation can decrease the incidence of wound infections (OR, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42,0.90, p = 0.01), bleeding (MD, -293.09; 95% CI: -431.48, -154.71, p < 0.0001), and length of stay in the hospital compared with open surgery (MD, -1.85; 95% CI: -3.52, -0.17, p = 0.03), but minimally invasive surgery increased patient operative time (MD, 51.45; 95% CI: 40.99, 61.92, p < 0.0001). Compared with the open operation, the microinvasive operation has the superiority in the treatment of the wound complications following the operation of radical prostatic carcinoma. But the operation time of the microinvasive operation is much longer. Furthermore, there is a certain amount of bias among the various studies, so it is important to be cautious in interpretation of the findings.
Topics: Humans; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37706271
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.14367 -
European Urology Open Science Jun 2023Rectal injury (RI) is a dreaded complication after radical prostatectomy (RP), increasing the risk of early postoperative complications, such as bleeding and severe... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Rectal injury (RI) is a dreaded complication after radical prostatectomy (RP), increasing the risk of early postoperative complications, such as bleeding and severe infection/sepsis, and late sequelae, such as a rectourethral fistula (RUF). Considering its traditionally low incidence, uncertainty remains as to predisposing risk factors and management.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the incidence of RI after RP in contemporary series and to propose a pragmatic algorithm for its management.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature search was performed using the Medline and Scopus databases. Studies reporting data on RI incidence were selected. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the differential incidence by age, surgical approach, salvage RP after radiation therapy, and previous benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)-related surgery.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eighty-eight, mostly retrospective noncomparative, studies were selected. The meta-analysis obtained a pooled RI incidence of 0.58% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.73) in contemporary series with significant across-study heterogeneity (I = 100%, < 0.00001). The highest RI incidence was found in patients undergoing open RP (1.25%; 95% CI 0.66-2.38) and laparoscopic RP (1.25%; 95% CI 0.75-2.08) followed by perineal RP (0.19%; 95% CI 0-276.95) and robotic RP (0.08%; 95% CI 0.02-0.31). Age ≥60 yr (0.56%; 95% CI 0.37-06) and salvage RP after radiation therapy (6.01%; 95% CI 3.99-9.05), but not previous BPH-related surgery (4.08%, 95% CI 0.92-18.20), were also associated with an increased RI incidence. Intraoperative versus postoperative RI detection was associated with a significantly decreased risk of severe postoperative complications (such as sepsis and bleeding) and subsequent formation of a RUF.
CONCLUSIONS
RI is a rare, but potentially devastating, complication following RP. RI incidence was higher in patients ≥60 yr of age, and in those who underwent open/laparoscopic approach or salvage RP after radiation therapy. Intraoperative RI detection and repair apparently constitute the single most critical step to significantly decrease the risk of major postoperative complications and subsequent RUF formation. Conversely, intraoperatively undetected RI can lead more often to severe infective complications and RUF, the management of which remains poorly standardised and requires complex procedures.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Accidental rectum tear is a rare, but potentially devastating, complication in men undergoing prostate removal for cancer. It occurs more often in patients aged 60 yr or older as well as in those who underwent prostate removal via an open/laparoscopic approach and/or prostate removal after radiation therapy for recurrent disease. Prompt identification and repair of this condition during the initial operation are the key to reduce further complications such as the formation of an abnormal opening between the rectum and the urinary tract.
PubMed: 37213241
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2023.03.017 -
Urology Aug 2023To collate available data via systematic review considering etiology, presentation, and treatment of Uro-Symphyseal Fistula (USF) in order to inform a contemporary... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To collate available data via systematic review considering etiology, presentation, and treatment of Uro-Symphyseal Fistula (USF) in order to inform a contemporary management framework.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021232954). MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases were searched for manuscripts considering USF published between 2000 and 2022. Full text manuscripts were reviewed for clinical data. Univariate statistical analysis was performed where possible.
RESULTS
A total of 31 manuscripts, comprising 248 USF cases, met inclusion criteria. Suprapubic pain and difficulty ambulating were common symptoms. MRI confirmed the diagnosis in 95% of cases. Radiotherapy for prostate cancer was the most common predisposing factor (93%). Among these patients, prior endoscopic bladder outlet surgery was common (83%; bladder neck incision/urethral dilatation n = 59, TURP/GLL PVP n = 34). In those with prior prostatic radiation, conservative management failed in 96% of cases. Cystectomy with urinary diversion (86% n = 184) was favored over bladder-sparing techniques (14% (n = 30) after prior radiation. In radiation naïve patients, conservative management failed in 72% of patients, resulting in either open fistula repair with flap (62%) or radical prostatectomy (28%).
CONCLUSION
Prior radiotherapy is a significant risk factor for USF and almost always requires definitive major surgery (debridement, cystectomy, and urinary diversion). On the basis of the findings within this systematic review, we present management principles that may assist clinicians with these complex cases. Further research into pathogenesis, prevention, and optimal treatment approach is required.
Topics: Male; Humans; Fistula; Cystectomy; Urinary Bladder; Urologic Surgical Procedures; Urinary Diversion; Urinary Fistula
PubMed: 37182647
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.05.002 -
Journal of Endourology May 2023Systematic reviews (SR) have always been used as the best evidence to compare three radical prostatectomy (RP) techniques: retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP),...
Systematic reviews (SR) have always been used as the best evidence to compare three radical prostatectomy (RP) techniques: retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), and robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP). Despite the superiority of minimally invasive surgery in relation to perioperative outcomes, the literature still cannot establish which technique is superior in relation to oncological outcomes. A new methodology called Reverse Systematic Review (RSR) was created to gather the best evidence in the literature based on a heterogeneous sample, allowing the comparison of oncological outcomes from a population point of view. To apply the RSR to compare RP techniques in relation to oncological outcomes: positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence rate (BCR). A search was carried out in eight databases between 2000 and 2020 through SR studies referring RRP, LRP, or RARP (80 SR). All references used in these SR were captured referring to 1724 reports. Preoperative and oncological outcomes were compared and correlated among RRP, LRP, and RARP. Five hundred fifty-nine (32.4%) reports for RRP, 413 (23.9%) for LRP, and 752 (43.7%) for RARP, and a total of 1,353,485 patients were found. Regarding PSM, 284 reports were collected for RRP, 324 for LRP, and 499 for RARP, with rates of 23.6%, 20.7%, and 19.2%, respectively, and only the RRP with statistical difference ( < 0.001). Using a nonlinear regression model, the BCR was correlated with follow-up time at 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 10 years: 10%, 15%, 18%, 20%, 23%, and 38% for RRP; 6%, 9%, 13%, 20%, 23%, and 10% for LRP; and 8%, 12%, 16%, 23%, 27%, and 19% for RARP. The absence of long-term work for RARP prevented more accurate projections of BCR. RSR proved to be effective in generating a population and heterogeneous sample capable of demonstrating better oncological results for minimally invasive surgery (LRP and RARP) compared to RRP. It demonstrated the maturity of temporal follow-up data for RRP and LRP and the impact of absence of late follow-up from RARP studies on the long-term rate of BCR. After 20 years of coexistence of the three main radical prostatectomy techniques, the RSR was able to detect better results from minimally invasive surgery in relation to PSMs and long-term BCRs.
Topics: Humans; Male; Laparoscopy; Prostatectomy; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36924303
DOI: 10.1089/end.2022.0819 -
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases Sep 2023Current guidelines recommend simple prostatectomy or endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) as treatment of choice for bladder prostatic obstruction (BPO) caused... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend simple prostatectomy or endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) as treatment of choice for bladder prostatic obstruction (BPO) caused by large prostate glands. We aimed to provide a wide-ranging analysis of the currently available evidence, comparing safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) versus open simple prostatectomy (OSP), laparoscopic simple prostatectomy (LSP), and laser EEP.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for retrospective and prospective studies comparing RASP to OSP or LSP or laser EEP (HoLEP/ThuLEP). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations were followed to design the search strategies, selection criteria, and evidence report. A meta-analysis evaluated perioperative safety and effectiveness outcomes. The weighted mean difference and risk ratio were used to compare continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCT article assessing risk of bias.
RESULTS
15 studies, including 6659 patients, were selected for meta-analysis: 13 observational studies, 1 non-randomized prospective study, and 1 randomized controlled trial. RASP was associated with statistically significant longer operative time (OT) and lower postoperative complication rate, length of stay (LOS), estimated blood loss (EBL), and transfusion rate (TR) compared to OSP. LSP showed longer LOS and lower postoperative SHIM score, with no difference in OT, EBL, and complications. Compared to laser EEP, RASP presented longer LOS and catheterization time and higher TR. ThuLEP presented shorter OT than RASP. No difference were found in functional outcomes between groups both subjectively (IPSS, QoL) and objectively (Qmax, PVR).
CONCLUSION
RASP has become a size-independent treatment for the management of BPO caused by a large prostate gland. It can duplicate the functional outcomes of OSP while offering a better safety profile. When compared to LSP, the latter still stands as a valid lower-cost option, but it requires solid laparoscopic skill sets and therefore it is unlikely to spread on larger scale. When compared to laser EEP, RASP offers a shorter learning curve, but it still suffers from longer catheterization time and LOS.
Topics: Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36402815
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-022-00616-4 -
BMJ Open Sep 2022Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy...
OBJECTIVES
Review and assess cost-effectiveness studies of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for localised prostate cancer compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).
DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING
PubMed, Embase, Scopus, International HTA database, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database and various HTA websites were searched (January 2005 to March 2021) to identify the eligible cost-effectiveness studies.
PARTICIPANTS
Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, or cost-minimization analyses examining RARP versus ORP or LRP were included in this systematic review.
INTERVENTIONS
Different surgical approaches to treat localized prostate cancer: RARP compared with ORP and LRP.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
A structured narrative synthesis was developed to summarize results of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness results (eg, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Study quality was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Extended checklist. Application of medical device features were evaluated.
RESULTS
Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, 11 of which were cost-utility analyses. Higher quality-adjusted life-years and higher costs were observed with RARP compared with ORP or LRP in 11 studies (91%). Among four studies comparing RARP with LRP, three reported RARP was dominant or cost-effective. Among ten studies comparing RARP with ORP, RARP was more cost-effective in five, not cost-effective in two, and inconclusive in three studies. Studies with longer time horizons tended to report favorable cost-effectiveness results for RARP. Nine studies (75%) were rated of moderate or good quality. Recommended medical device features were addressed to varying degrees within the literature as follows: capital investment included in most studies, dynamic pricing considered in about half, and learning curve and incremental innovation were poorly addressed.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite study heterogeneity, RARP was more costly and effective compared with ORP and LRP in most studies and likely to be more cost-effective, particularly over a multiple year or lifetime time horizon. Further cost-effectiveness analyses for RARP that more thoroughly consider medical device features and use an appropriate time horizon are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021246811.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36127082
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058394 -
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 -
Annals of Surgery Mar 2023To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The RECOURSE Study: Long-term Oncologic Outcomes Associated With Robotically Assisted Minimally Invasive Procedures for Endometrial, Cervical, Colorectal, Lung, or Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To assess long-term outcomes with robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery for colorectal, urologic, endometrial, cervical, and thoracic cancers.
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive surgery provides perioperative benefits and similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Recent robotic surgery data have questioned long-term benefits.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer outcomes based on surgical approach was conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using Pubmed, Scopus, and Embase. Hazard ratios for recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were extracted/estimated using a hierarchical decision tree and pooled in RevMan 5.4 using inverse-variance fixed-effect (heterogeneity nonsignificant) or random effect models.
RESULTS
Of 31,204 references, 199 were included (7 randomized, 23 database, 15 prospective, 154 retrospective studies)-157,876 robotic, 68,007 laparoscopic/thoracoscopic, and 234,649 open cases. Cervical cancer: OS and DFS were similar between robotic and laparoscopic [1.01 (0.56, 1.80), P =0.98] or open [1.18 (0.99, 1.41), P =0.06] surgery; 2 papers reported less recurrence with open surgery [2.30 (1.32, 4.01), P =0.003]. Endometrial cancer: the only significant result favored robotic over open surgery [OS; 0.77 (0.71, 0.83), P <0.001]. Lobectomy: DFS favored robotic over thoracoscopic surgery [0.74 (0.59, 0.93), P =0.009]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.93 (0.87, 1.00), P =0.04]. Prostatectomy: recurrence was less with robotic versus laparoscopic surgery [0.77 (0.68, 0.87), P <0.0001]; OS favored robotic over open surgery [0.78 (0.72, 0.85), P <0.0001]. Low-anterior resection: OS significantly favored robotic over laparoscopic [0.76 (0.63, 0.91), P =0.004] and open surgery [0.83 (0.74, 0.93), P =0.001].
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term outcomes were similar for robotic versus laparoscopic/thoracoscopic and open surgery, with no safety signal or indication requiring further research (PROSPERO Reg#CRD42021240519).
Topics: Male; Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Prostatic Neoplasms; Lung; Colorectal Neoplasms; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 36073772
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005698 -
European Urology Open Science Sep 2022Erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical prostatectomy is a concern for patients and their partners. Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-ESWT) can... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical prostatectomy is a concern for patients and their partners. Low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LI-ESWT) can potentially enhance tissue repair and regeneration. The aim of the current study was to systematically review the literature to assess the role of LI-ESWT in the management of patients with postprostatectomy ED.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Two authors independently performed a systematic search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify all relevant articles. Non-English reports, case reports, reviews, letters, and editorials were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed according to the GRADE guidelines.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Nine articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. All the studies included were published between 2015 and 2022 and the majority of them compared phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) alone versus a combination of LI-ESWT and PDE5Is. Only three studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In general, there is no standardized protocol for LI-ESWT for postprostatectomy ED. In comparisons of LI-ESWT + PDE5Is versus PDE5Is alone, some authors found a statistically significant improvement in erectile function with LI-ESWT + PDE5Is. The starting time for LI-ESWT differed among the studies, ranging from 3 d to 6 mo after surgery. The main limitations of the review are the scarcity of studies, small sample sizes, high risk of bias, and high heterogeneity among studies.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently limited evidence on the use of LI-ESWT either alone or in combination with PDE5Is in penile rehabilitation protocols after prostatectomy. However, small clinical trials with short follow-up show that LI-ESWT could potentially play a role in the management of postprostatectomy ED in the future. Further RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed.
PATIENT SUMMARY
Despite limited reports in the literature, low-intensity shockwave therapy after removal of the prostate is a promising noninvasive treatment for dealing with erectile dysfunction after surgery.
PubMed: 35928730
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.07.003 -
Journal of Evidence-based Medicine Jun 2022To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.
OBJECTIVE
To comprehensively analyze the cost-utility of robotic surgery in clinical practice and to investigate the reporting and methodological quality of the related evidence.
METHODS
Data on cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of robotic surgery were collected in seven electronic databases from the inception to July 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the CHEERs and QHES checklists. A systematic review was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as the outcome of interest.
RESULTS
Thirty-one CUAs of robotic surgery were eligible. Overall, the identified CUAs were fair to high quality, and 63% of the CUAs ranked the cost-utility of robotic surgery as "favored," 32% categorized as "reject," and the remaining 5% ranked as "unclear." Although a high heterogeneity was present in terms of the study design among the included CUAs, most studies (81.25%) consistently found that robotic surgery was more cost-utility than open surgery for prostatectomy (ICER: $6905.31/QALY to $26240.75/QALY; time horizon: 10 years or lifetime), colectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), knee arthroplasty (ICER: $1134.22/QALY to $1232.27/QALY; time horizon: lifetime), gastrectomy (dominated by robotic surgery; time horizon: 1 year), spine surgery (ICER: $17707.27/QALY; time horizon: 1 year), and cystectomy (ICER: $3154.46/QALY; time horizon: 3 months). However, inconsistent evidence was found for the cost-utility of robotic surgery versus laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Fair or high-quality evidence indicated that robotic surgery is more cost-utility than open surgery, while it remains inconclusive whether robotic surgery is more cost-utility than laparoscopic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, an additional evaluation is required.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Robotic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35715999
DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12475