Urology Clinical Evidence

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the early oncological, perioperative and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) vs open retropubic RP (RRP) in a laparoscopically naive centre, as robotic assistance aids the laparoscopically naive surgeon in minimally invasive prostate surgery, by offering magnification and superior dexterity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1 November 2006 to 31 December 2007, 120 patients had RARP; this group was followed prospectively and evaluated for early oncological, perioperative and functional outcomes (measured at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery), and compared to a historical control group of consecutive patients who had RRP from 20 May 2004 to 28 February 2007. All patients were operated by the same laparoscopically naive surgeons. The comparison was by matched-pair analysis.

RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were equivalent, although there was a higher percentage of patients with pT3/pT4 disease in the RRP group. As a proxy for oncological outcome, positive surgical margins were equivalent in the two groups (22% RARP vs 25% RRP, P = 0.77). The overall mean (range) surgical duration was significantly longer in RARP group, at 215 (165-450) min vs 160 (90-240) min in the RRP group (P < 0.001). However, RARP had a statistically significant advantage over RRP for estimated blood loss, of 200 vs 800 mL (P < 0.001), duration of catheterization (6 vs 7 days P < 0.001) and length of stay (3 vs 6 days, P < 0.001) The 3, 6 and 12-month continence rates were 70%, 93% and 97% vs 63%, 83% and 88% after RARP and RRP, respectively (P = 0.15, 0.011 and 0.014). The 3, 6 and 12 month overall potency recovery rate was 31%, 43% and 61% vs 18%, 31% and 41%, after RARP and RRP, respectively (P = 0.006, 0.045 and 0.003).

CONCLUSION: Our initial experience showed the feasibility of RARP in a laparoscopically naive centre. RRP seems to be a faster procedure, whereas RARP provided better results in terms of estimated blood loss, hospitalization and functional results. The early oncological outcome seemed to be equivalent in the two groups.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because no adequate randomized trials have compared active treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer, the authors analyzed risk-adjusted, cancer-specific mortality outcomes among men who underwent radical prostatectomy, men who received external-beam radiation therapy, and men who received primary androgen-deprivation therapy.

METHODS: The Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor (CaPSURE) registry comprises men from 40 urologic practice sites who are followed prospectively under uniform protocols, regardless of treatment. In the current study, 7538 men with localized disease were analyzed. Prostate cancer risk was assessed using the Kattan preoperative nomogram and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score, both well validated instruments that are calculated from clinical data at the time of diagnosis. A parametric survival model was constructed to compare outcomes across treatments adjusting for risk and age.

RESULTS: In total, 266 men died of prostate cancer during follow-up. Adjusting for age and risk, the hazard ratio for cancer-specific mortality relative to prostatectomy was 2.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-3.24) for radiation therapy and 3.22 (95% CI, 2.16-4.81) for androgen deprivation. Absolute differences between prostatectomy and radiation therapy were small for men at low risk but increased substantially for men at intermediate and high risk. These results were robust to a variety of different analytic techniques, including competing risks regression analysis, adjustment by CAPRA score rather than Kattan score, and examination of overall survival as the endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS: Prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer was associated with a significant and substantial reduction in mortality relative to radiation therapy and androgen-deprivation monotherapy. Although this was not a randomized study, given the multiple adjustments and sensitivity analyses, it is unlikely that unmeasured confounding would account for the large observed differences in survival.

Abstract

PURPOSE: Robot assisted partial nephrectomy is rapidly emerging as an alternative to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for the treatment of renal malignancy. We present the largest multi-institution comparison of the 2 approaches to date, describing outcomes from 3 experienced minimally invasive surgeons.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review, evaluating 118 consecutive laparoscopic partial nephrectomies and 129 consecutive robot assisted partial nephrectomies performed between 2004 and 2008 by 3 experienced minimally invasive surgeons at 3 academic centers. Perioperative data were recorded along with clinical and pathological outcomes.

RESULTS: The robot assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy groups were equivalent in terms of age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (2.3 vs 2.4) and radiographic tumor size (2.9 vs 2.6 cm), respectively. Comparison of operative data revealed no significant differences in terms of overall operative time (189 vs 174 minutes), collecting system entry (47% vs 54%), pathological tumor size (2.8 vs 2.5 cm) and positive margin rate (3.9% vs 1%) for robot assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss was less for robot assisted vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (155 vs 196 ml, p = 0.03) as was length of hospital stay (2.4 vs 2.7 days, p <0.0001). Warm ischemia times were significantly shorter in the robot assisted partial nephrectomy series (19.7 vs 28.4 minutes, p <0.0001). Subset analysis based on complexity revealed that tumor complexity had no effect on operative time or estimated blood loss for robot assisted partial nephrectomy, although complexity did affect these factors for laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. In addition, for simple and complex tumors robot assisted partial nephrectomy provided significantly shorter warm ischemic time than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (15.3 vs 25.2 minutes for simple, p <0.0001; 25.9 vs 36.7 minutes for complex, p = 0.0002). There were no intraoperative complications during robot assisted partial nephrectomy vs 1 complication during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Postoperative complication rates were similar for robot assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (8.6% vs 10.2%).

CONCLUSIONS: Robot assisted partial nephrectomy is a safe and viable alternative to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, providing equivalent early oncological outcomes and comparable morbidity to a traditional laparoscopic approach. Moreover robot assisted partial nephrectomy appears to offer the advantages of decreased hospital stay as well as significantly less intraoperative blood loss and shorter warm ischemia time, the latter of which may help to provide maximal preservation of renal reserve. In addition, operative parameters for robot assisted partial nephrectomy appear to be less affected by tumor complexity compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Interestingly while the advantages of robotic surgery have historically been believed to aid laparoscopic naïve surgeons, these data indicate that robot assisted partial nephrectomy may also benefit experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Abstract

PURPOSE: We report a comparative analysis of a large series of laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomies performed by a high volume single surgeon at a tertiary care institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 500 patients treated with minimally invasive partial nephrectomy by a single surgeon between March 2002 and February 2012. Demographic and perioperative data were collected and statistically analyzed. R.E.N.A.L. (radius, exophytic/endophytic properties, nearness of tumor to the collecting system or sinus in mm, anterior/posterior and location relative to polar lines) nephrometry score was used to score tumors. Those scored as moderate and high complexity were designated as complex. Trifecta was defined as a combination of warm ischemia time less than 25 minutes, negative surgical margins and no perioperative complications.

RESULTS: Two groups were identified, including 261 patients with robotic and 231 with laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Demographics were similar in the groups. The robotic group was significantly more morbid (Charlson comorbidity index 3.75 vs 1.26), included more complex tumors (R.E.N.A.L. score 5.98 vs 7.2), and had lower operative (169.9 vs 191.7 minutes) and warm ischemia (17.9 vs 25.2 minutes) time, intraoperative (2.6% vs 5.6%, each p <0.001) and postoperative (24.53% vs 32.03%, p = 0.004) complications, and positive margin rate (2.9% vs 5.6%, p <0.001). Thus, a higher overall trifecta rate was observed for robotic partial nephrectomy (58.7% vs 31.6%, p <0.001). The laparoscopic group had longer followup (3.43 vs 1.51 years, p <0.001) and no significant difference in postoperative changes in renal function. Main study limitations were the retrospective nature, arbitrary definition of trifecta and shorter followup in the RPN group.

CONCLUSIONS: Our large comparative analysis shows that robotic partial nephrectomy offers a wider range of indications, better operative outcomes and lower perioperative morbidity than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Overall, the quest for trifecta seems to be better accomplished by robotic partial nephrectomy, which is likely to become the new standard for minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Robotic cystectomy is an emerging alternative for treatment of invasive bladder cancer (BCa). However, reduction in postoperative morbidity relative to the open approach has not been demonstrated.

OBJECTIVE: To compare complication rates in patients undergoing robotic versus open radical cystectomy (RC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study of 187 consecutive patients undergoing RC at our institution-104 open RC, 83 robotic RC.

INTERVENTION: Open or robotic RC with urinary diversion.

MEASUREMENTS: Demographic, perioperative, and complication data were recorded prospectively. Thirty-day and 90-d complication rates were assessed using the modified Clavien complication scale. Data were evaluated using chi(2) and multivariate logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At 30 d, the open group demonstrated a higher overall complication rate (59% vs 41%; p=0.04) as well as more major complications (30% vs 10%; p=0.007). At 90 d, the overall complication rate was greater in the open group, but this was not statistically significant (62% vs 48%; p=0.07). However, there was a significantly higher major complication rate in the open cohort (31% vs 17%; p=0.03). When subjected to logistic regression analysis, robotic cystectomy was an independent predictor of fewer overall and major complications at 30 and 90 d. High American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (3-4) and longer surgical time were independent predictors of major complications. Though this is one of the largest published RC series, the sample size is relatively small. Moreover, despite the two patient cohorts being similarly matched, the study was not performed in a randomized fashion.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing robotic cystectomy experienced fewer postoperative complications than those undergoing open cystectomy. Robotic cystectomy is an independent predictor of fewer overall and major complications. Until long-term oncologic results are available, robotic cystectomy should still be considered investigational.