Urinary continence four weeks following Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy: The UK experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher G Eden ◽  
Dimitrios Moschonas ◽  
Ricardo Soares
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Urinary Continence ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robot Assisted

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate urinary continence four weeks following Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients and methods: Forty patients with T2–T3 prostate cancer underwent Retzius-sparing-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and their results were compared with those from the 40 patients having robot-assisted radical prostatectomy done by the same surgeon immediately prior to the adoption of Retzius-sparing-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Results: Patients in the two groups had similar age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason sum, clinical stage, d’Amico risk profile, blood loss, prostate weight and post-operative hospital stay. Median operating time (200 (interquartile range=155–266) vs 223 (interquartile range=100–238) min; p=0.05) and catheterisation (8 (interquartile range=8–8) vs 14 (interquartile range=14–14) days; p<0.0001) were shorter in the Retzius-sparing group, many of whom had suprapubic catheters inserted. The overall complication rate was lower in Retzius-sparing patients (2.5% vs 8.0%; p=0.36). Positive surgical margin rates were similar for Retzius-sparing and non-Retzius-sparing patients and decreased with greater experience with the Retzius-sparing technique: 16.7% vs 7.7% for pT2 ( p=0.65) and 31.8% vs 14.3% for pT3 ( p=0.44). Initial prostate specific antigen was <0.1 ng/ml in 97.5% and 100%, respectively ( p=1.00). At four weeks post-operation 0, 1 and 2 pads/day were needed in the Retzius-sparing group in 90.0%, 7.5% and 2.5% of patients, compared to 37.5% ( p<0.0001), 32.5% ( p=0.01) and 30% ( p=0.002) of men having conventional surgery. Conclusion: Retzius-sparing-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is faster than the anterior approach to the prostate, allows a shorter catheterisation time and produces dramatically better continence results at four weeks with 90% of patients being pad-free and 97.5% of patients needing 0–1 pads/day.

scholarly journals Prediction of a positive surgical margin and biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ching-Wei Yang ◽  
Hsiao-Hsien Wang ◽  
Mohamed Fayez Hassouna ◽  
Manish Chand ◽  
William J. S. Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
Asian Population ◽  
Nerve Sparing ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Surgeon Experience

AbstractThe positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) are two main factors associated with poor oncotherapeutic outcomes after prostatectomy. This is an Asian population study based on a single-surgeon experience to deeply investigate the predictors for PSM and BCR. We retrospectively included 419 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy cases. The number of PSM cases was 126 (30.1%), stratified as 22 (12.2%) in stage T2 and 103 (43.6%) in stage T3. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 10 ng/mL (p = 0.047; odds ratio [OR] 1.712), intraoperative blood loss > 200 mL (p = 0.006; OR 4.01), and postoperative pT3 stage (p < 0.001; OR 6.901) were three independent predictors for PSM while PSA > 10 ng/mL (p < 0.015; hazard ratio [HR] 1.8), pT3 stage (p = 0.012; HR 2.264), International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade > 3 (p = 0.02; HR 1.964), and PSM (p = 0.027; HR 1.725) were four significant predictors for BCR in multivariable analysis. PSMs occurred mostly in the posterolateral regions (73.8%) which were associated with nerve-sparing procedures (p = 0.012) while apical PSMs were correlated intraoperative bleeding (p < 0.001). A high ratio of pT3 stage after RARP in our Asian population-based might surpass the influence of PSM on BCR. PSM was less significant than PSA and ISUP grade for predicting PSA recurrence in pT3 disease. Among PSM cases, unifocal and multifocal positive margins had a similar ratio of the BCR rate (p = 0.172) but ISUP grade > 3 (p = 0.002; HR 2.689) was a significant BCR predictor. These results indicate that PSA and pathological status are key factors influencing PSM and BCR.

scholarly journals Transvesical Retzius-Sparing Versus Standard Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Adjusted Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen Deng ◽  
Hao Jiang ◽  
Xiaoqiang Liu ◽  
Luyao Chen ◽  
Weipeng Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Urinary Continence ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Functional Scores

ObjectivesTo estimate the safety and efficiency of transvesical Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (T-RARP) compared with standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa).Materials and Methods174 patients bearing localized PCa and undergoing T-RARP or S-RARP between October 2017 and January 2020 were retrospectively enrolled in our analysis. All potential baseline confounders were strictly restrained with propensity-score matching (PM) method (1: 1). Within the matched setting, the perioperative and functional outcomes were compared between the T-RARP and S-RARP groups, while the oncological results and functional recovery of the two arms were presented with Kaplan-Meier curves.ResultsFinally, 114 and 60 eligible patients harbouring localized PCa were identified in the S-RARP and T-RARP group, respectively. No significant differences between the two groups were found in all baseline characteristics after PM. Within the matched cohort, no case was converted to open surgery in either group. The T-RARP group was significantly related to a higher mean operative time (p = 0.001) and shorter median hospital stay length (p &lt; 0.001). There were not significant differences in the median estimated blood loss and specimen Gleason score between the two arms. The proportions of transfusion, pT3a disease, postoperative complication, and positive surgical margin in the T-RARP group were also comparable to that in the S-RARP group. The mean prostate-specific antigen and median erectile functional scores did not differ significantly between the two groups at postoperative 3 months and last follow-up. T-RARP vs. S-RARP had significantly improved urinary continence (UC) rates at the removal of catheter (p &lt; 0.001) and postoperative 3 months (p &lt; 0.001), but the significant difference between the two groups in UC recovery disappeared at last follow-up (p = 0.119). No significant difference in biochemical recurrence-free survival was observed following the two surgeries (p = 0.727).ConclusionsT-RARP by experienced hands was feasible for selected patients with clinically localized PCa, yielding significantly improved early return to UC and similar erectile functional preservation without compromising oncological control when compared with the standard approach.

scholarly journals Prediction of A Positive Surgical Margin and Biochemical Recurrence After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy 

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ching-Wei Yang ◽  
Hsiao-Hsien Wang ◽  
Mohamed Hassouna ◽  
Manish Chand ◽  
Hsiao-Jen Chung
Keyword(s):  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Pathological Stage ◽  
Robot Assisted

Abstract A positive surgical margin (PSM) detected in a prostatectomy specimen is associated with poor oncotherapeutic outcomes. Certain aspects regarding the determination of surgical margins and their effects on biochemical recurrence (BCR) remain unclear. This study investigated the predictive factors for PSM and BCR. We prospectively included 419 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy cases. The number of PSM cases was 126 (30.1%), stratified as 22 (12.2%) in stage T2 and 103 (43.6%) in stage T3. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) > 10 ng/mL (p = 0.047; odds ratio [OR] 1.712), intraoperative blood loss > 200 mL (p = 0.006; OR 4.01), and postoperative pT3 stage (p < .001; OR 6.901) were three independent predictors for PSM in multivariate analysis. PSA > 10 ng/mL (p < 0.015; hazard ratio [HR] 1.8), pT3 stage (p = 0.012; HR 2.264), ISUP grade > 3 (p = 0.02; HR 1.964), and PSM (p = 0.027; HR 1.725) were four significant predictors for BCR in multivariate analysis. Among PSM cases, ISUP grade > 3 (p = 0.002; HR 2.689) was a significant BCR predictor. These results indicate that PSA level and pathological stage markedly influence the PSM and BCR.

scholarly journals Single plus one port robotic radical prostatectomy (SPORP); Initial experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volkan Tugcu ◽  
Abdulmuttalip Simsek ◽  
Ismail Evren ◽  
Kamil Gokhan Seker ◽  
Ramazan Kocakaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Serum Level ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robotic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Postoperative Continence

Objective: This article reports on patients with early stage prostate cancer treated with single plus one port robotic radical prostatectomy (SPORP). Materials and methods: Since January 2014, we performed SPORP in 8 patients with localized prostate cancer. Age of patients, clinical stage, operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, blood loss, histopathological evaluation, postoperative continence, serum level of PSA were evaluated. Results: Mean age of the 8 patients was 59.85 years. All operations were completed without conversion to standard robotic procedure or open surgery. No intra operative complications occurred. Mean operating time was 143 minutes; prostate excision 123 minutes and urethrovesical anastomosis 20 minutes. Mean blood loss was 45 ml. Preoperative Gleason scores were (3 + 4) in one patient and (3 + 3) in 7 patients. Postoperative Gleason scores were (3 + 4) in 2 patients, and (3 + 3) in 6 patients. All these 8 cases were in T1c clinical stage. Early postoperative complications were drain leakage (n = 1), atelectasis (n = 1), wound infection (n = 1) and fever (n = 1). There was no positive surgical margin. The serum level of PSA was less than 0.2 ng/ml and no other complications happened during the 4 to 12 months follow-up period. Postoperative continence and cosmetic results were excellent. Conclusions: It is relatively easy for urologists who are skilled in traditional laparoscopic and robotic surgeries to master SPORP. However long-term outcomes of this surgery need further investigations.

Positive Surgical Margin Trends In Patients With Pathologic T3 Prostate Cancer Treated With Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

2014 ◽  
pp. 150127063130004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Lightfoot ◽  
Yu-Kai Su ◽  
Shailen Shivam Sehgal ◽  
Ziho Lee ◽  
Giovanni H. Greaves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robot Assisted

scholarly journals Oncological and functional outcomes of 722 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) cases: The largest Canadian 5-year experience

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Christopher Zorn ◽  
Côme Tholomier ◽  
Marc Bienz ◽  
Pierre-Alain Hueber ◽  
Quoc Dien Trinh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Oncologic Outcomes ◽  
Urinary Continence ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Transfusion Rate ◽  
Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Introduction: While RARP (robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy) has become the predominant surgical approach to treat localized prostate cancer, there is little Canadian data on its oncological and functional outcomes. We describe the largest RARP experience in Canada.Methods: Data from 722 patients who underwent RARP performed by 7 surgeons (AEH performed 288, TH 69, JBL 23, SB 17, HW 15, QT 7, and KCZ 303 patients) were collected prospectively from October 2006 to December 2013. Preoperative characteristics, as well as postoperative surgical and pathological outcomes, were collected. Functional and oncological outcomes were also assessed up to 72 months postoperative.Results: The median follow-up (Q1-Q3) was 18 months (9-36). The D’Amico risk stratification distribution was 31% low, 58% intermediate and 11% high-risk. The median operative time was 178 minutes (142-205), blood loss was 200 mL (150-300) and the postoperative hospital stay was 1 day (1-23). The transfusion rate was only 1.0%. There were 0.7% major (Clavien III-IV) and 10.1% minor (Clavien I-II) postoperative complications, with no mortality. Pathologically, 445 men (70%) were stage pT2, of which 81 (18%) had a positive surgical margin (PSM). In addition, 189 patients (30%) were stage pT3 and 87 (46%) with PSM. Urinary continence (0-pads/day) returned at 3, 6, and 12 months for 68%, 80%, and 90% of patients, respectively. Overall, the potency rates (successful penetration) for all men at 6, 12, and 24 months were 37%, 52%, and 59%, respectively. Biochemical recurrence was observed in 28 patients (4.9%), and 14 patients (2.4%) were referred for early salvage radiotherapy. In total, 49 patients (8.4%) underwent radiotherapy and/or hormonal therapy.Conclusions: This study shows similar results compared to other high-volume RARP programs. Being the largest RARP experience in Canada, we report that RARP is safe with acceptable oncologic outcomes in a Canadian setting.

scholarly journals NeuroSAFE robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus standard robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for men with localised prostate cancer (NeuroSAFE PROOF): protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e028132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eoin Dinneen ◽  
Aiman Haider ◽  
Clare Allen ◽  
Alex Freeman ◽  
Tim Briggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
Urinary Continence ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Laparoscopic Prostatectomy ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionRobot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) offers potential cure for localised prostate cancer but is associated with considerable toxicity. Potency and urinary continence are improved when the neurovascular bundles (NVBs) are spared during a nerve spare (NS) RALP. There is reluctance, however, to perform NS RALP when there are concerns that the cancer extends beyond the capsule of the prostate into the NVB, as NS RALP in this instance increases the risk of a positive surgical margin (PSM). The NeuroSAFE technique involves intraoperative fresh-frozen section analysis of the posterolateral aspect of the prostate margin to assess whether cancer extends beyond the capsule. There is evidence from large observational studies that functional outcomes can be improved and PSM rates reduced when the NeuroSAFE technique is used during RALP. To date, however, there has been no randomised controlled trial (RCT) to substantiate this finding. The NeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study is designed to assess whether it is feasible to randomise men to NeuroSAFE RALP versus a control arm of ‘standard of practice’ RALP.MethodsNeuroSAFE PROOF feasibility study will be a multicentre, single-blinded RCT with patients randomised 1:1 to either NeuroSAFE RALP (intervention) or standard RALP (control). Treatment allocation will occur after trial entry and consent. The primary outcome will be assessed as the successful accrual of 50 men at three sites over 15 months. Secondary outcomes will be used to aid subsequent power calculations for the definitive full-scale RCT and will include rates of NS; PSM; biochemical recurrence; adjuvant treatments; and patient-reported functional outcomes on potency, continence and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationNeuroSAFE PROOF has ethical approval (Regional Ethics Committee reference 17/LO/1978). NeuroSAFE PROOF is supported by National Institute for Healthcare Research Research for Patient Benefit funding (NIHR reference PB-PG-1216-20013). Findings will be made available through peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT03317990.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document