https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12531

The impact of surgical technique on very early functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy

Vol. 96 No. 3 (2024)
Submitted: April 1, 2024
Accepted: April 11, 2024
Published: October 2, 2024
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, open radical prostatectomy, functional outcomes, oncological outcomes
Abstract Views: 111
PDF: 49
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Mladen Stankovic
mladen.stankovic@stadtmission-hd.de
Department of Urology, Salem Hospital, Academic Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Germany.

Introduction: To determine the very early functional as well as oncological outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) at a single institution.
Methods: We identified patients who underwent RARP or ORP at our institution between August 2021 and July 2023. The main criterion for surgical technique selection was patient preference. Primary endpoints included anastomosis leakage rate, very early continence rate reported by standardized pad-test, and positive surgical margin rate. Furthermore, we analyzed operation time, hospital stay, postoperative analgesia, and complication rates.
Results: In this prospective study, we analyzed data from 222 radical prostatectomies (111 RARP and 111 ORP). There were no significant differences in preoperative age, prostate size, and risk stratification among the groups. Patients who underwent RARP had lower anastomosis leakage rates (8.1% vs. 18.9%) and slightly lower early continence rates (76.6% vs. 78.4%) when compared to patients who underwent ORP. Positive surgical margin rates were similar, and complication rates were also comparable. Operation time was similar for both techniques, but the hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RARP group (6.3 vs. 9.1 days, p=0.03). The ORP group experienced significantly higher opioid administration postoperatively (p<0.001).
Conclusions: From a functional and oncological point of view, both techniques are safe and provide excellent outcomes when performed by experienced surgeons. Nevertheless, patients are likely to benefit from a shortened hospital stay and reduced postoperative pain after RARP.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, et al. Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur Urol. 2020;77:38-52.
Adolfsson J. Watchful waiting and active surveillance: the current position. BJU Int. 2008;102:10-14.
Hatzinger M, Hubmann R, Moll F, Sohn M. Die Geschichte der Prostatektomie - Von den Anfängen bis DaVinci (The history of prostate cancer from the beginning to DaVinci). Aktuelle Urol. 2012;43:228-230.
Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982; 128:492-497.
Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology. 1997;50:854-857.
Binder J, Jones J, Bentas W, et al. Roboterunterstützte Laparoskopie in der Urologie. Radikale Prostatektomie und rekonstruktive retroperitoneale Eingriffe (Robot-assisted laparoscopy in urology. Radical prostatectomy and reconstructive retroperitoneal interventions). Urologe A. 2002;41:144-149.
Chandrasekar T, Tilki D. Robotic-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy: an update to the never-ending debate. Transl Androl Urol 2018;7:S120-S123.
Luciani LG, Mattevi D, Cai T, Malossini G. Robotics in Urology: No More Shadows? Uro 2021; 1: 254-265.
Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:431-52.
Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111:58-64.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-213.
D'Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Pretreatment nomogram for prostate-specific antigen recurrence after radical prostatectomy or external-beam radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:168-172.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405-17.
Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J, et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2024;96:12531.
Gresty H, Walters U, Rashid T. Post-prostatectomy incontinence: multimodal modern-day management. Br J Community Nurs. 2019;24:154-159.
Theissen L, Preisser F, Wenzel M, et al. Very Early Continence After Radical Prostatectomy and Its Influencing Factors. Front Surg. 2019; 6:60.
Hoeh B, Preisser F, Wenzel M, et al. Correlation of Urine Loss after Catheter Removal and Early Continence in Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy. Curr Oncol. 2021; 28:4738-4747.
Heidenreich A, Fossati N, Pfister D, et al. Cytoreductive Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Prostate Cancer and Skeletal Metastases. Eur Urol Oncol. 2018; 1:46-53.
Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robotassisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 382-404.
Meeks JJ, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: positive surgical margins matter. Urol Oncol 2013; 31: 974-79.
Yossepowitch O, Briganti A, Eastham JA, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and contemporary update. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 303-13.
Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Riedel E, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 2003; 170: 2292-95.
Suardi N, DellOglio P, Gallina A, et al. Evaluation of positive surgical margins in patients undergoing robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy according to preoperative risk groups. Urol Oncol 2016; 34: 57.
Liss MA, Palazzi K, Stroup SP, Jabaji R, et al. Outcomes and complications of pelvic lymph node dissection during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2013; 31: 481-88.
Jung JH, Seo JW, Lim MS, et al. Extended pelvic lymph node dissection including internal iliac packet should be performed during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for highrisk prostate cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012; 22:785-90.
Gandaglia G, Sammon JD, Chang SL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in the postdissemination era. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 1419-26.
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet. 2016; 388:1057-1066.

How to Cite

Stankovic, M. (2024). The impact of surgical technique on very early functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy . Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12531
Copyright (c) 2024 the Author(s) Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.