-
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 -
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica = the... Oct 2020Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is getting more and more popular becoming the most common radical prostatectomy technique. Unfortunately, a not negligible...
INTRODUCTION
Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is getting more and more popular becoming the most common radical prostatectomy technique. Unfortunately, a not negligible proportion of patients in whom RARP is performed experience urinary incontinence. We aimed to systematically review the current literature evidence on urinary incontinence conservative treatment after RARP.
EDIDENCE AQUISITION
A systematic literature review search using PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed in December 2019. PRISMA guidelines have been adopted. Population consisted of patients with urinary incontinence after RARP (P), conservative intervention was considered of interest (I). No comparator was considered mandatory (C). Outcomes of interest were the recovery of continence and quality of life (O).
EVIDEDENCE SYNTHESIS
Six studies were included. Four of them investigated the use of pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT). PFMT improved pelvic muscle strength. Continence recovery was faster when guided PFMT was adopted. Moreover, two studies tested the effect of solifenacin on urinary incontinence. One of them, a randomized clinical trial, failed to show shorter time to continence in solifenacin group compared to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of pads is associated with a detrimental effect on quality of life thus active treatments for UI post-RARP are warranted. PFMT has the main advantage to shorten the time for recovery. The use of solifenacin seems to not offer striking advantages in UI following RARP. Future studies should focus on testing the efficacy of these treatments when used after robotic vs. open radical prostatectomy.
Topics: Conservative Treatment; Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 32432436
DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03782-0 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Apr 2020Several studies have assessed the safety and feasibility of single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using different and custom built robotic-assisted... (Review)
Review
Several studies have assessed the safety and feasibility of single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using different and custom built robotic-assisted technology. In part due to the non-standardized nature of these approaches, single site robotic prostatectomy has not been widely adopted. With the recent approval of the da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale CA) Single Port (SP) platform, there has been a renewed interest in single site robotic-assisted prostatectomy and several institutions have begun reporting their initial experiences with this technique. In this systematic review, we sought to assess and summarize the literature regarding patient outcomes for single site robotic-assisted prostatectomy and evaluate its role in surgical treatment of prostate cancer. This systematic review was structured using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies describing the use of any robotic platform, including da Vinci Si, Xi or SP platforms for robotic single-port or single site radical prostatectomy between 2000 and July 15, 2019 were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Studies were excluded if they included combined cases with other organ resection, represented use in a non-clinical setting (such as a cadaveric model), or described results for a simple prostatectomy technique. Data was extracted by two authors with concerns resolved by consensus. Primary outcomes were mean operative times, estimated blood loss (mL), and hospital length of stay (days). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative conversion to open surgery, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Variables of interest included sample size (n), mean age (years), mean prostate size (mL), prostate specific antigen (PSA, ng/mL), Gleason score, clinical and pathological TNM staging [American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC)], lymph nodes (n) and perioperative complications as available. A total of 217 studies were reviewed by title and abstract, with 28 selected for full-text review; ultimately, 12 studies were included, with available data from 145 patients. Primary outcomes and preoperative characteristics varied greatly amongst patients and across studies. One patient (0.7%) required conversion to a multi-port approach and there were no conversions to an open technique. No intraoperative complications were reported, and no Clavien grade III or greater postoperative complications have been described in the initial 81 radical prostatectomies performed with the SP platform. Single Port techniques appear to represent a safe and feasible approach for performing the minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. The current available literature on the single port radical prostatectomy is weak and consists of single center studies with small sample sizes, short-term follow up and limited functional data. More rigorous multi-center trials with standardized metrics for reporting functional outcomes as well as long-term cancer specific survival are necessary to validate these initial studies.
PubMed: 32420205
DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.11.05 -
Andrologia Sep 2020An increasing number of evidences demonstrate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) using various energy devices. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
An increasing number of evidences demonstrate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) using various energy devices. We performed a systemic literature search for all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any EEP technique with TURP or open prostatectomy (OP). A total of 21 RCTs with 2,957 patients were included; the majority were studies of holmium laser or bipolar diathermy. Compared to TURP, EEP resulted in greater improvement in IPSS (MD: -0.56, 95% CI: -0.90 to -0.23), PVR (MD: -2.24, 95% CI: -4.45 to -0.03) and Qmax (MD: -1.07, 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.61). EEP was associated with more prostate tissue removed (MD: -9.73, 95% CI: -15.71 to -3.75), less haemoglobin loss (MD: -0.47, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.23), shorter catheterisation time (MD: -22.82, 95% CI: -30.11 to -15.52) and shorter length of hospitalisation (MD: -1.05, 95% CI: -1.33 to -0.78). Compared to OP, EEP resulted in equivalent functional outcomes. However, EEP was associated with less haemoglobin loss (MD: -1.17, 95% CI: -1.98 to -0.37), shorter catheterisation time (MD: -89.74, 95% CI: -112.60 to -66.88) and shorter length of hospitalisation (MD: -3.91, 95% CI: -4.63 to -3.60). The current evidence supports that EEP can be considered as a new standard of the surgical management for BPH.
Topics: Humans; Laser Therapy; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32400026
DOI: 10.1111/and.13612 -
Annals of Surgery Mar 2021Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery.
OBJECTIVE
Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery.
BACKGROUND
Robotic surgery utilization has increased over the years across a wide range of surgical procedures. However, evidence supporting improved clinical outcomes after robotic surgery is limited.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of systematic reviews from inception to January 2019 for systematic reviews describing postoperative outcomes after robotic surgery. We qualitatively described patient outcomes of commonly performed robotic procedures: radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, lobectomy, thymectomy, rectal resection, partial nephrectomy, distal gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, hepatectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and cholecystectomy.
RESULTS
One hundred fifty-four systematic reviews included 336 studies and 18 randomized controlled trials reporting on patient outcomes after robotic compared to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data from the randomized controlled trials demonstrate that robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offered fewer biochemical recurrence and improvement in quality of recovery and pain scores only up to 6 weeks postoperatively compared to open radical prostatectomy. When compared to laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic surgery offered improved urinary and sexual functions. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer had fewer conversion to open compared to laparoscopic. Otherwise, robotic surgery outcomes were similar to conventional surgical approaches for other procedures except for radical hysterectomy where minimally invasive approaches may result in patient harm compared to open approach.
CONCLUSION
Robotic surgery has been widely incorporated into practise despite limited supporting evidence. More rigorous research focused on patient-important benefits is needed before further expansion of robotic surgery.
Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Survival Rate
PubMed: 32398482
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003915 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Dec 2019The influence of a previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) is still controversial. Therefore, we performed...
BACKGROUND
The influence of a previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) on the outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) is still controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes of RP with or without a previous TURP.
METHODS
We conducted a computerized literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and included 15 retrospective studies evaluating RPs with or without a previous TURP in this meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies, including 6,840 cases, were analyzed. RP after a previous TURP were related to smaller prostate volumes (WMD: -6.93 cm; 95% CI, -10.89 to -2.97; P<0.001), lower preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels (WMD: -1.51; 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.53; P=0.002), longer operative times (WMD: 13.22 min; 95% CI, 4.55 to 21.89 min; P=0.003), more blood loss (WMD: 55.38 mL; 95% CI, 12.35 to 98.41 mL; P=0.01), higher overall complication rates (OR =1.98; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.08; P=0.002), longer hospital stays (WMD: 1.16 days; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.67; P<0.001), longer duration of catheter (WMD: 0.60 days; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.64; P<0.001), higher positive surgical margin rates (OR =1.30; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.55; P=0.004), lower complete continence rates at 3 months (OR =0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.81; P<0.001), 6 months (OR =0.52; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.88; P=0.01), 12 months (OR =0.59; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.74; P<0.001), and lower potency rates at 12 months (OR =0.62; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.77; P<0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that open RP after previous TURP could achieve better outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
RP after a previous TURP leads to worse perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes. For these patients an open procedure is recommended. Due to the low number of studies and known biases, further large-scale studies are needed to support this result.
PubMed: 32038968
DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.11.13 -
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 -
Actas Urologicas Espanolas 2020Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) could have better outcomes with decreased complication rates if compared to traditional techniques (transurethral...
BACKGROUND
Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) could have better outcomes with decreased complication rates if compared to traditional techniques (transurethral resection and open prostatectomy) for the surgical relief of bladder outlet obstruction. Despite this, its use has not been implemented in the urology community, probably due to the high complication rates of the HoLEP learning curve (HoLC).
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of the complication rates in HoLC and compare these with those of traditional techniques.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
a systematic literature search was performed in MedLine and Embase using the search terms «HoLEP» and «holmium laser enucleation». We identified 680 records and selected 15 studies following PRISMA criteria.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
1705 cases in the learning curves of 59 surgeons were analyzed. Most of the studies do not report complications in a standardized way. Intraoperative complication rates are low and usually without long-term impact. Postoperative complication rates are limited and show improvement with practice. The complication rates in the HoLC are similar or lower to those reported by traditional techniques.
CONCLUSION
Complication rates in HoLC are not higher than those reported by traditional techniques. HoLEP learning should not be delayed for fear of increasing complications or their severity.
Topics: Humans; Lasers, Solid-State; Learning Curve; Male; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction
PubMed: 31822354
DOI: 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.08.008 -
The Journal of Sexual Medicine Jan 2020Erectile function (EF) outcomes after radical pelvic surgery vary widely among different studies, partly as a consequence of heterogeneity with regard to the data...
INTRODUCTION
Erectile function (EF) outcomes after radical pelvic surgery vary widely among different studies, partly as a consequence of heterogeneity with regard to the data assessment and reporting methodology.
AIM
Review the methodology of data assessment and reporting of studies evaluating EF outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP), radical cystectomy (RC), and rectal surgery (RS) and provide detailed recommendations to conduct future high-quality research.
METHODS
The MEDLINE database was searched for randomized clinical trials and open-label prospective or retrospective studies.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE
The panel reviewed the modality of data assessment and reporting concerning 3 specific areas: preoperative patients assessment, surgical technique description, and postoperative patients management and follow-up.
RESULTS
Overall, 280, 36, and 73 studies investigating EF after RP, RC, and RS, respectively, were included. Baseline EF was largely reported (88%) in studies on RP, but only 67% of the studies on either RC or RS assessed EF before surgery. Baseline comorbidities that could impact postoperative EF were reported in 62%, 64%, and 85% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. The type of surgical approach was provided in all studies, and surgical details relevant to EF (eg, nerve- or organ-sparing surgery) were reported by 86%, 81%, and 62% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. Conversely, surgeon experience was rarely reported across all studies. Validated tools were commonly used to assess postoperative EF (64% of studies for RP, 78% for RC, and 71% for RS). Only 41%, 17%, and 29% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively, reported a follow-up of at least 2 years. Use of erectile dysfunction treatment after surgery was assessed by only 39%, 17%, and 4.1% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. Factors potentially influencing EF recovery (eg, urinary or fecal continence, urinary diversion) were commonly reported, but sexual desire after surgery was reported by only 18%, 42%, and 37% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
The use of a shared methodology for the assessment and reporting of data on EF outcomes after pelvic surgery would allow better estimation of EF outcomes after pelvic surgery.
STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS
The modality of data assessment and reporting among studies investigating EF outcome after pelvic surgery was systematically investigated to provide recommendations allowing a proper interpretation of data.
CONCLUSION
Studies on EF outcomes after radical pelvic surgery should fulfill specific criteria concerning preoperative patient assessment, reporting of surgical details, and postoperative functional outcome evaluation and management. Capogrosso P, Pozzi EP, Celentano V, et al. Erectile Recovery After Radical Pelvic Surgery: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations for Data Reporting. J Sex Med 2020;17:7-16.
Topics: Cystectomy; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Pelvis; Penile Erection; Postoperative Period; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 31668729
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.09.013 -
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica = the... Feb 2020In the past years several reviews have analysed different aspects of surgical techniques for patients with LUTS due to BPE however none of them have concentrated on...
INTRODUCTION
In the past years several reviews have analysed different aspects of surgical techniques for patients with LUTS due to BPE however none of them have concentrated on large prostates treatment exclusively. Moreover, none of the reviews have focused on level 1 evidence which is essential to avoid bias and wrong conclusions. With this knowledge in mind, aim of the present review is to analyze the available randomized clinical trials assessing the management of patients with big prostates (>80 cc).
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review of the literature using the Medline, Scopus and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until January 2019 was performed using both the Medical Subjects Heading and free test protocols. The search was conducted by combining the following terms: "Enucleation," "Prostate," "Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia," "Holmium," "laser," "adenomectomy," "Randomized clinical trial," "Big" "large" "prostate," ">80," "≥80," "transurethral resection of prostate," "Thulium," "Diode," "laparoscopy," "robotic," "Plasmakinetic," "green light" "532 nm" "YAG" "Lower Urinary tract symptoms". Only randomized clinical trials were included in the analysis.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Overall 9 RCTs were retrieved with most of them reporting data at 1 year. The present trials compared enucleation, vaporization and open techniques between each other. In terms of perioperative outcomes all the techniques had similar operative times and resected weight however catheterization time and hospital stay were better in endoscopic techniques when compared to open surgery. In terms of functional outcomes (IPSS, QMAX and PVR) none of the techniques was proven superior to the other. When considering complications open procedures carried a higher risk of transfusions while no technique was proven superior to the others in terms of transient urge urinary incontinence, bladder neck contracture and reintervention. Only one trial was retrieved reporting five years data confirming the safety, efficacy and durability of simple prostatectomy SP and holmium laser enucleation of the prostate at five years.
CONCLUSIONS
According to our review no technique may be considered better than the other when treating large adenomas. Studies are still lacking to prove long term efficacy and future studies should clarify the role of prostatic artery embolization and minimally invasive simple prostatectomy in the management of prostates larger than 80 mL.
Topics: Humans; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male
PubMed: 31619035
DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03589-6