Functional outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) vs. open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP): critical analysis in the context of current evidence

A Comparison of the Incidence and Location of Positive Surgical Margins in Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy and Open Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy

BackgroundRadical prostatectomy reduces mortality among patients with localised prostate cancer. Evidence on whether different surgical techniques can affect mortality rates is lacking. ObjectiveTo evaluate functional and oncological outcomes 8 yr after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). Design, setting, and participantsWe enrolled 4003 patients in a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial comparing RALP and RRP in 14 Swedish centres between 2008 and 2011. Data for functional outcomes were assessed via validated patient questionnaires administered preoperatively and at 12 and 24 mo and 8 yr after surgery. Outcome measurements and statistical analysisThe primary endpoint was urinary incontinence. Functional outcomes at 8 yr were analysed using the modified Poisson regression approach. Results and limitationsUrinary incontinence was not significantly different at 8 yr after surgery between RALP and RRP (27% vs 29%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90–1.23). Erectile dysfunction was significantly lower in the RALP group (66% vs 70%; aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–0.99). Prostate cancer–specific mortality (PCSM) was significantly lower in the RALP group at 8 yr after surgery (40/2699 vs 25/885; aRR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34–0.93). Differences in oncological outcomes were mainly seen in the group with high D’Amico risk, with a lower risk of positive surgical margins (21% vs 34%), biochemical recurrence (51% vs 69%), and PCSM (14/220 vs 11/77) for RALP versus RRP. The main limitation is the nonrandomised design. ConclusionsIn this prospective multicentre controlled trial, PCSM at 8 yr after surgery was lower for RALP in comparison to RRP. A causal relationship between surgical technique and mortality cannot be inferred, but the result confirms that RALP is oncologically safe. Taken together with better short-term results reported elsewhere, our findings confirm that implementation of RALP may continue. Patient summaryOur study comparing two surgical techniques for removal of the prostate for localised prostate cancer shows that a robot-assisted minimally invasive technique is safe in the long term. Together with previous results showing some better short-term effects with this approach, our findings support continued use of robot-assisted surgery.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study.

Baseline Functional Status May Predict Decisional Regret Following Robotic Prostatectomy

The Role of Early Adopter Bias for New Technologies in Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study

Predictors of Positive Surgical Margins After Laparoscopic Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

ROBOTIC ASSISTED LAPAROSCOPIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY VERSUS RETROPUBIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A PROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF POSTOPERATIVE PAIN

Trends in treatment for localized prostate cancer after emergence of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in Taiwan

Study Type--Therapy (case series) Level of Evidence 4. What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? With the increased use of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), a growing number of publications have sought to compare these more advanced techniques to retropubic RP (RRP). Many studies have found RALP and LRP to be associated with lower blood loss, postoperative pain, and hospital stay when compared with RRP. The present study showed that, after adjusting for potential confounders, patients undergoing RALP had a lower risk of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing RRP. However, there was no significant difference in the odds of being re-admitted ≤ 90 days after RP between patients undergoing a LRP and RRP. • To examine the risk of 90-day re-admission among patients undergoing retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic RP (LRP), and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in Taiwan. • We identified 2741 hospitalised patients who underwent a RP. Of these 2741 cases, 1773 patients underwent RRP, 694 LRP, and 274 RALP. • We performed a conditional (fixed-effect) logistic regression model to explore the odds of 90-day re-admission from RP among patients undergoing RRP, LRP, and RALP. • In all, 257 of the 2741 (9.4%) sampled subjects were re-admitted ≤ 90 days of the index RP. • Patients undergoing a RALP had a significantly lower incidence rate of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing a RRP or LRP (3.6% vs 10.7% vs 8.2%, P < 0.001). • Compared with patients undergoing a RRP, the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP was only 0.35 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.68) after adjusting for patient age, geographic region, year of surgery, Charlson Co-morbidity Index score, and surgeon age and the number of RP cases/year. • However, there was no significant difference in the odds of being re-admitted ≤ 90 days of RP between patients undergoing a LRP and RRP. • The adjusted odds of 90-day re-admission for patients undergoing a RALP were 0.46 (95% CI 0.23-0.94) those of patients undergoing a LRP. • Our study shows that patients undergoing a RALP had a lower adjusted risk of 90-day re-admission than patients undergoing RRP. However, no significant differences were identified between LRP and RRP.

Integrity of Prostatic Tissue for Molecular Analysis After Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic and Open Prostatectomy

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has emerged as the most common treatment for localized prostate cancer. With improved surgical precision, RALP has produced hope of improved potency rates, especially with the advent of nerve-sparing and other modified techniques. However, erectile dysfunction (ED) remains a significant problem for many men regardless of surgical technique. To identify the functional outcomes of robotic versus open and laparoscopic techniques, new robotic surgical techniques and current treatment options of ED following RALP. A Medline search was performed in March 2014 to identify studies comparing RALP with open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, modified RALP techniques and treatment options and management for ED following radical prostatectomy. RALP demonstrates adequate potency rates without compromising oncologic benefit, with observed benefit for potency rates compared with RRP. Additionally, specific surgical technical modifications appear to provide benefit over traditional RALP. Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5I) demonstrate benefit for ED treatment compared with placebo. However, long-term benefit is often lost after use. Other therapies have been less extensively studied. Additionally, correct patient identification is important for greatest clinical benefit. RALP appears to provide beneficial potency rates compared with RRP; however, these effects are most pronounced at high-volume centers with experienced surgeons. No optimal rehabilitation program with PDE5Is has been identified based on current data. Additionally, vacuum erection devices, intracavernosal injections and other techniques have not been well validated for post RALP ED treatment.

Prostate cancer is the most common solid organ malignancy in men in the USA with an annual incidence of 105 and an annual mortality rate of 19 per 100,000 people. With the advent of PSA screening, the majority of prostate cancer diagnosed is organ confined. Recent studies including the SPCG-4 and PIVOT trials have demonstrated a survival benefit for those undergoing active treatment for localized prostate cancer. The foremost surgical option has been radical prostatectomy (RP). The gold standard has been open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP); however, minimally invasive approaches including laparoscopic and robotic approaches are commonplace and increasing in popularity. We aim to describe the surgical options for the treatment of localized prostate cancer by reviewing the literature. A review of the literature was undertaken using MEDLINE and PubMed. Articles addressing the topic of radical prostatectomy by open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches were selected. Studies comparing the different modalities were also identified. These articles were reviewed for data pertaining to perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes. There is a paucity of randomized studies comparing the three modalities. The published data has demonstrated a benefit in favour of robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) over laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and traditional open RRP in perioperative outcomes. When reviewing the best-reported outcomes for RALP compared to LRP and RRP, operative times are lower (105 vs. 138 vs. 138min), estimated blood loss rates are lower (111 vs. 200 vs. 300ml) and blood transfusion rates are lower as in the length of stay (1 vs. 2 vs. 2.3days) and overall complication rates (4.3 vs. 5 vs. 20%). Similarly, when reviewing functional outcomes, RALP compared to LRP was not inferior. At 12months, the reported continence was 97 vs. 94 vs. 89% and potency was 94 vs. 77 vs. 90%. In comparative studies, however, these differences did not always meet statistical significance. With respect to oncological outcomes, there was no clear evidence of superiority of one modality over another. RALP is now the most common modality for surgical treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. Individual series appear to support better perioperative outcomes and perhaps quicker return to functional outcomes. There does not appear to be a clear advantage to date in oncological parameters; however, RALP does not appear to be inferior to either LRP or RRP. It is anticipated that further high quality randomized studies will shed more light on the clinical and statistical significance in the comparison between these modalities.

PurposeIn addition to incisional hernia, inguinal hernia is a recognized complication to radical retropubic prostatectomy. To compare the risk of developing inguinal and incisional hernias after open radical prostatectomy compared to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.MethodPatients planned for prostatectomy were enrolled in the prospective, controlled LAPPRO trial between September 2008 and November 2011 at 14 hospitals in Sweden. Information regarding patient characteristics, operative techniques and occurrence of postoperative inguinal and incisional hernia were retrieved using six clinical record forms and four validated questionnaires.Results3447 patients operated with radical prostatectomy were analyzed. Within 24 months, 262 patients developed an inguinal hernia, 189 (7.3%) after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 73 (8.4%) after open radical prostatectomy. The relative risk of having an inguinal hernia after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy was 18% lower compared to open radical retropubic prostatectomy, a non-significant difference. Risk factors for developing an inguinal hernia after prostatectomy were increased age, low BMI and previous hernia repair. The incidence of incisional hernia was low regardless of surgical technique. Limitations are the non-randomised setting.ConclusionsWe found no difference in incidence of inguinal hernia after open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The low incidence of incisional hernia after both procedures did not allow for statistical analysis. Risk factors for developing an inguinal hernia after prostatectomy were increased age and BMI.

Many American hospitals will soon face readmission penalties deducted from Medicare reimbursements, which will place further scrutiny on techniques that may offer reduced postoperative morbidity. We aimed to perform the first multi-institutional study using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, to compare predictors of readmission within cohorts of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) in a contemporary nationwide series of radical prostatectomy. All patients who underwent radical prostatectomy in 2011 were identified in the NSQIP database using procedural codes. As no patients in the analysis underwent LRP, patients were grouped as RRP or RALRP for analysis. Perioperative variables were analyzed using chi-squared and Student's t-tests as appropriate. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify readmission risk factors. Of 5471 patient cases analyzed, 4374 (79.9%) and 1097 (20.1%) underwent RALRP and RRP, respectively. RRP and RALRP cohorts experienced different readmission rates (5.47% vs 3.48%, respectively; p=0.002). In addition, RRP experienced a higher rate of overall complications than RALRP (23.25% vs 5.62%, respectively; p<0.001), but not higher rates of reoperation (1.09% vs 0.96%, respectively; p=0.689). Overall predictors of readmission included operative time, dyspnea, and RRP or RALRP procedure type. Current smoking and patient age were predictive of readmission for RRP only, while dyspnea was predictive of readmission following RALRP only. This is the first multi-institutional retrospective study that examines readmission rates and procedural intracohort predictors of readmission for RRP in the contemporary United States. We report a significant difference in postoperative complication and readmission rates in RRP compared with RALRP. Further prospective analysis is warranted.