Review

Authors: Sean F Mungovan, Sigrid V Carlsson, Gregory C Gass...

Urinary incontinence is a common and predictable consequence among men with localized prostate cancer who have undergone radical prostatectomy. Despite advances in the surgical technique, urinary continence recovery time remains variable. A range of surgical and patient-related risk factors contributing to urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy have been described, including age, BMI, membranous urethral length and urethral sphincter insufficiency. Physical activity interventions incorporating aerobic exercise, resistance training and pelvic floor muscle training programmes can positively influence the return to continence in men after radical prostatectomy. Traditional approaches to improving urinary continence after radical prostatectomy have typically focused on interventions delivered during the postoperative period (rehabilitation). However, the limited efficacy of these postoperative approaches has led to a shift from the traditional reactive model of care to more comprehensive interventions incorporating exercise-based programmes that begin in the preoperative period (prehabilitation) and continue after surgery. Comprehensive prehabilitation interventions include appropriately prescribed aerobic exercise, resistance training and specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and exercise training programmes. Transperineal ultrasonography is a non-invasive and validated method for the visualization of the action of the pelvic floor musculature, providing real-time visual biofeedback to the patient during specific pelvic floor muscle instruction and training. Importantly, the waiting time before surgery can be used for the delivery of comprehensive prehabilitation exercise-based interventions to increase patient preparedness in the lead-up to surgery and optimize continence and health-related quality-of-life outcomes following radical prostatectomy.

Topics: Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Exercise; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence

PubMed: 33833445
DOI: 10.1038/s41585-021-00445-5

Review

Authors: Na Zeng, Jian-Xuan Sun, Chen-Qian Liu...

BACKGROUND

Image-guided surgery (IGS) refers to surgery navigated by medical imaging technology, helping doctors better clarify tumor boundaries, identify metastatic lymph nodes and preserve surrounding healthy tissue function. Recent studies have provided expectable momentum of the application of IGS in prostate cancer (PCa). The authors aim to comprehensively construct a bibliometric analysis of the application of IGS in PCa.

METHOD

The authors searched publications related to application of IGS in PCa from 2013 to 2023 on the web of science core collection (WoSCC) databases. VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and R package 'bibliometrix' were used for bibliometric analysis.

RESULTS

Two thousand three eighty-nine articles from 75 countries and 2883 institutions led by the United States were included. The number of publications related to the application of IGS in PCa kept high in the last decade. Johns Hopkins University is the top research institutions. Journal of Nuclear Medicine has the highest popularity as the selection of journal and co-cited journal. Pomper Martin G. had published the most paper. Ali Afshar-Oromieh was co-cited most frequently. The clinical efficacy of PSMA-PET/CT in PCa diagnosis and treatment are main topics in this research field, with emerging focuses on the use of fluorescence imaging guidance technology in PCa. 'PSMA' and 'PET/CT' are the main keywords as long-term research hotspots.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first bibliometric analysis of researches on application of IGS in PCa with three recognized bibliometric software, providing an objective description and comprehensive guidance for the future relevant investigations.

Topics: Humans; Bibliometrics; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Surgery, Computer-Assisted; Prostatectomy

PubMed: 38445538
DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001232

Review

Authors: N L Sharma, N C Shah, D E Neal...

Prostate cancer remains a significant health problem worldwide and is the second highest cause of cancer-related death in men. While there is uncertainty over which men will benefit from radical treatment, considerable efforts are being made to reduce treatment related side-effects and in optimising outcomes. This article reviews the development and introduction of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP), the results to date, and the possible future directions of RALP.

Topics: Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Prostatectomy; Robotics

PubMed: 19861995
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605341

Review

Authors: Cailey Guercio, Akanksha Mehta

INTRODUCTION

The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer adversely affects the physical and emotional well-being of patients and partners and has been associated with sexual dysfunction in patients and their intimate partners.

AIM

To identify predictors of sexual satisfaction in prostate cancer survivors and their partners based on a review of the current literature.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive review of the PubMed database from January 2000 to May 2017 focused on the (i) prevalence of patient and partner sexual dysfunction related to radical prostatectomy, (ii) differences in patient and partner perspectives of sexual function and dysfunction, and (iii) predictors of patient and partner sexual satisfaction after radical prostatectomy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient- and partner-reported sexual satisfaction.

RESULTS

There is a paucity of published data examining sexual satisfaction in prostate cancer survivors and their partners. Patients and partners can have different expectations of sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy and different attitudes toward the relative importance of recovery of sexual function after surgery. Available data suggest that patients' and partners' mental and physical health and the quality of communication between them are important contributors to their sexual satisfaction. Patient-perceived partner support also is associated with better patient-reported erectile function and greater relationship satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Mental health, physical health, quality of interpersonal communication, and patient-perceived partner support appear to be the most important predictors of sexual satisfaction for patients and partners in the post-prostatectomy period. There is a definite need for further research on this topic to develop interventions to improve sexual function and quality of life for prostate cancer survivors and their intimate partners. Guercio C, Mehta A. Predictors of Patient and Partner Satisfaction Following Radical Prostatectomy. Sex Med Rev 2018;6:295-301.

Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Orgasm; Personal Satisfaction; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Sexual Partners

PubMed: 29128271
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.08.005

Review

Authors: Fabio Castiglione, David J Ralph, Asif Muneer...

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Due to the increasing numbers of radical prostatectomies (RP) performed for prostate cancer, a substantial number of patients are now suffering from post-operative erectile dysfunction (ED). The aim of this study is to summarize the current literature on surgical techniques for managing post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction.

RECENT FINDINGS

The PubMed database was searched for English-language articles published up to Jan 2017 using the following search terms: "prostatectomy AND erectile dysfunction", "prostatectomy AND penile prostheses", and "prostatectomy AND penile implants". All of the studies that evaluated medical treatment were excluded. In the last few decades, the understanding of the anatomy of the male pelvis and prostate has improved. This has led to significant changes in the nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy techniques, with the aim of preserving post-surgical erectile function (EF). In this scenario, the prostate vascular supply and the anatomy of the neurovascular bundles have a central role. Penile prosthesis implantation is considered the third-line treatment option for RP ED patients, and they have been reported to be a very successful treatment with the highest patient satisfaction rate. Considering the failure of penile rehabilitation, and the lack of evidence for accessory pudendal artery (APA) preservation and nerve graft, nerve-sparing surgery and penile prostheses represent, today, the only methods to permanently and definitively preserve or erectile function after RP.

Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Implantation; Penis; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms

PubMed: 28965315
DOI: 10.1007/s11934-017-0735-2

Comparative Study Review

Authors: Mark Ferretti, John Phillips

INTRODUCTION

Prostatectomy for benign disease, also known as a 'simple prostatectomy', is neither simple in indication nor approach. In the post-Medical Therapy of Prostatic Symptoms (MTOPS), NCT00021814 trial era, the medical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and consequent bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) has shifted surgical intervention to those patients who are medical-non responders, present with advanced signs of BOO and obstructive uropathy, and those with prostate gland volumes beyond the size normally approachable with standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Simple prostatectomy through an open surgical approach is associated with improvements in BOO and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) but at the expense of considerable surgical and perioperative morbidity. Advances in technology have made it possible for patients to be offered standard open surgical approaches as well as transurethral approaches with photon-based energy sources (i.e. laser prostatectomy) and laparoscopic simple prostatectomy. A review of the historical challenges of BPH and the standard-of-care of open prostatectomy will put into perspective the potential advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and robotic prostatectomy for the treatment of benign BOO due to BPH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A careful review of the literature was performed utilizing PubMed and ClinicalKey searches to identify relevant articles. Search terms 'simple prostatectomy', 'robotic simple prostatectomy' and 'laparoscopic simple prostatectomy'.

RESULTS

Over 14 series of open simple prostatectomies and over 20 minimally invasive series were identified and used as a reference. Additionally, several review articles were identified and incorporated.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple prostatectomy may be performed safely in appropriately selected patients utilizing either open or minimally invasive approaches. Clinical criteria should be used to determine the appropriateness of either retropubic versus transvesical approach.

Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Laparoscopy; Laparotomy; Length of Stay; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome

PubMed: 26497345
DOI: No ID Found

Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Hyun Ju Seo, Na Rae Lee, Soo Kyung Son...

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

Review

Authors: Ayodeji E Sotimehin, Eiftu Haile, Bradley C Gill...

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

Review

Authors:

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

Authors: Adam Jones, Krishna Sethia

Topics: Costs and Cost Analysis; Humans; Male; Prostatectomy; Robotics

PubMed: 20056045
DOI: 10.1308/003588410X12518836439362