Tag Archive for: prostatectomy

Posts

Video: Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques

Health resource use after robot-assisted surgery vs open and conventional laparoscopic techniques in oncology: analysis of English secondary care data for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy

David Hughes*† ,Charlotte Camp*, Jamie OHara*† and Jim Adshead

 

*HCD Economics, Daresbury, Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of Chester, Chester, and Hertfordshire and South Bedfordshire Urological Cancer Centre, Department of Urology, Lister Hospital, Stevenage, UK

 

Objectives

To evaluate postoperative health resource utilisation and secondary care costs for radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England, via a comparison of robot-assisted, conventional laparoscopic and open surgical approaches.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively analysed the secondary care records of 23 735 patients who underwent robot-assisted (RARP, n = 8 016), laparoscopic (LRP, n = 6 776) or open radical prostatectomy (ORP, n = 8 943). We further analysed 2 173 patients who underwent robot-assisted (RAPN,n = 365), laparoscopic (LPN, n = 792) or open partial nephrectomy (OPN, n = 1 016). Postoperative inpatient admissions, hospital bed-days, excess bed-days and outpatient appointments at 360 and 1 080 days after surgery were reviewed.

JUnAOTW2FI

Results

Patients in the RARP group required significantly fewer inpatient admissions, hospital bed-days and excess bed-days at 360 and 1 080 days than patients undergoing ORP. Patients undergoing ORP had a significantly higher number of outpatient appointments at 1 080 days. The corresponding total costs were significantly lower for patients in the RARP group at 360 days (£1679 vs £2031 for ORP; P < 0.001) and at 1 080 days (£3461 vs £4208 for ORP; P < 0.001). In partial nephrectomy, Patients in the RAPN group required significantly fewer inpatient admissions and hospital bed-days at 360 days compared with those in the OPN group; no significant differences were observed in outcomes at 1 080 days. The corresponding total costs were lower for patients in the RAPN group at 360 days (£779 vs £1242 for OPN,P = 0.843) and at 1 080 days (£2122 vs £2889 for ORP; P = 0.570). For both procedure types, resource utilisation and costs for laparoscopic surgeries lay at the approximate midpoint of those for robot-assisted and open surgeries.

Conclusion

Our analysis provides compelling evidence to suggest that RARP leads to reduced long-term health resource utilisation and downstream cost savings compared with traditional open and laparoscopic approaches. Furthermore, despite the limitations that arise from the inclusion of a small sample, these results also suggest that robot-assisted surgery may represent a cost-saving alternative to existing surgical options in partial nephrectomy. Further exploration of clinical cost drivers, as well as an extension of the analysis into subsequent years, could lend support to the wider commissioning of robot-assisted surgery within the NHS.

Article of the Week: The impact of PSMs on long-term outcomes after RP

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Dr. Prabhakar Mithal, discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Positive Surgical Margins in Radical Prostatectomy Patients Do Not Predict Long-term Oncological Outcomes: Results from SEARCH

 

Prabhakar Mithal, Lauren E. Howard†‡, William J. Aronson§, Martha K. Terris**††Matthew R. Cooperberg‡‡, Christopher J. Kane§§, Christopher Amling¶¶ and Stephen J. Freedland***

 

Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of MedicineDivision of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, §Urology Section, Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemDepartment of Urology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, **Section of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center††Section of Urology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, ‡‡Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, §§Urology Department, University of California San Diego Health System, San Diego, CA ¶¶Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR , and ***Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

 

Read the full article

Objective

To assess the impact of positive surgical margins (PSMs) on long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP), including metastasis, castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM).

Patients and Methods

Retrospective study of 4 051 men in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) cohort treated by RP from 1988 to 2013. Proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of PSMs in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR), CRPC, metastases, and PCSM. To determine if PSMs were more predictive in certain patients, analyses were stratified by pathological Gleason score, stage, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level.

FebAOTW4

Results

The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 6.6 (3.2–10.6) years and 1 127 patients had >10 years of follow-up. During this time, 302 (32%) men had BCR, 112 (3%) developed CRPC, 144 (4%) developed metastases, and 83 (2%) died from prostate cancer. There were 1 600 (40%) men with PSMs. In unadjusted models, PSMs were significantly associated with all adverse outcomes: BCR, CRPC, metastases and PCSM (all ≤ 0.001). After adjusting for demographic and pathological characteristics, PSMs were associated with increased risk of only BCR (HR 1.98, < 0.001), and not CRPC, metastases, or PCSM (HR ≤1.29, > 0.18). Similar results were seen when stratified by pathological Gleason score, stage, or PSA level, and when patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy were excluded.

Conclusions

PSMs after RP are not an independent risk factor for CRPC, metastasis, or PCSM overall or within any subset. In the absence of other high-risk features, PSMs alone may not be an indication for adjuvant radiotherapy.

Editorial: Should we worry about positive surgical margins in prostate cancer?

The debate on the impact of positive surgical margins (PSMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP) continues. The study by Mithal et al. [1] in the present issue contributes further data to an extensive and growing body of literature addressing the clinical significance of a PSM after RP, and ultimately alludes to the question of how to manage these patients.

The authors [1] use the SEARCH database, a large dataset comprised of patients from multiple Veterans Affairs Medical Centers across the USA, to collect and report data on oncological outcomes of PSMs after RP. After adjusting for demographic and pathological confounders, use of adjuvant therapy, and the competing risk of non-prostate-cancer-related death, PSMs were significantly associated with an increased hazard of biochemical recurrence (BCR; hazard ratio 1.99, 95% CI 1.76–2.26), but not castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), metastases, or mortality (prostate-cancer specific or overall). The current study [1], takes such analysis a step further and reports that PSMs were not associated with a negative impact on hard clinical outcomes (CRPC, metastasis, and prostate cancer-specific mortality [PCSM]) in those subgroups at the highest risk of disease progression (high Gleason stage, T-stage, and PSA level). These findings are not necessarily novel, but rather consistent with much of the prior literature. The detrimental impact of PSMs on BCR is well documented [2]. However, the impact of PSMs on hard clinical outcomes such as CRPC, metastasis, and PCSM has not been well demonstrated, despite multiple studies with large cohorts and extensive follow-up.

The negative consequence of a PSM on long-term patient outcome is a very intuitive concept, as it indicates cancer has been inadequately resected or ‘left behind’. Furthermore, the negative impact of a PSM on hard clinical outcomes is well established in many surgically treated malignancies. However, in prostate cancer there remains a disconnect between PSMs and hard clinical outcomes. The authors of the current study [1] provide further evidence to reiterate that the course of this disease after a PSM is not absolute, immediate, or even necessarily concerning (at least in the intermediate follow-up). A PSM after RP may increase the likelihood of BCR but this does not necessarily equal imminent progression and/or death.

PSMs are reported in 10–31% of patients undergoing RP, thus emphasising the clinical importance of this question [3, 4]. Despite the current findings [1], PSMs should not be dismissed. The management of a PSM after RP remains complicated. A proportion of patients will progress and succumb to this disease and, furthermore, therapeutic interventions with shown benefit are available to address such concerns. The decision on how aggressively to manage PSMs may involve an understanding of the patient (comorbidities, lifestyle, and preferences) along with an informed discussion. Furthermore, other pathological details not captured in this study [1] (tumour margin extent and location) [5, 6], along with longer follow-up may be important in identifying drivers for this disease and how to better stratify patients. As with many clinical questions, the approach to PSMs after RP is not necessarily clearly defined and may not apply similarly to all patients across the board. This study [1] may not answer whether or not we should worry about PSMs in prostate cancer, but contributes to our ability to develop clinical algorithms and informed decisions in these patients.

Read the full article

 

Stanley A. Yap
Department of Urology, University of California Davis Medical Center, 4860 Y Street, Suite 3500, Sacramento, CA, 95817,
USA

 

References

 

Video: PSMs in RP patients do not predict long-term oncological outcomes

Positive Surgical Margins in Radical Prostatectomy Patients Do Not Predict Long-term Oncological Outcomes: Results from SEARCH

Prabhakar Mithal, Lauren E. Howard†‡, William J. Aronson§, Martha K. Terris**††Matthew R. Cooperberg‡‡, Christopher J. Kane§§, Christopher Amling¶¶ and Stephen J. Freedland***

 

Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of MedicineDivision of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC, §Urology Section, Department of Surgery, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare SystemDepartment of Urology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, **Section of Urology, Veterans Affairs Medical Center††Section of Urology, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, ‡‡Department of Urology, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, §§Urology Department, University of California San Diego Health System, San Diego, CA ¶¶Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR , and ***Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA

 

Read the full article

Objective

To assess the impact of positive surgical margins (PSMs) on long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP), including metastasis, castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), and prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM).

Patients and Methods

Retrospective study of 4 051 men in the Shared Equal Access Regional Cancer Hospital (SEARCH) cohort treated by RP from 1988 to 2013. Proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of PSMs in predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR), CRPC, metastases, and PCSM. To determine if PSMs were more predictive in certain patients, analyses were stratified by pathological Gleason score, stage, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level.

FebAOTW4

Results

The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 6.6 (3.2–10.6) years and 1 127 patients had >10 years of follow-up. During this time, 302 (32%) men had BCR, 112 (3%) developed CRPC, 144 (4%) developed metastases, and 83 (2%) died from prostate cancer. There were 1 600 (40%) men with PSMs. In unadjusted models, PSMs were significantly associated with all adverse outcomes: BCR, CRPC, metastases and PCSM (all ≤ 0.001). After adjusting for demographic and pathological characteristics, PSMs were associated with increased risk of only BCR (HR 1.98, < 0.001), and not CRPC, metastases, or PCSM (HR ≤1.29, > 0.18). Similar results were seen when stratified by pathological Gleason score, stage, or PSA level, and when patients who underwent adjuvant radiotherapy were excluded.

Conclusions

PSMs after RP are not an independent risk factor for CRPC, metastasis, or PCSM overall or within any subset. In the absence of other high-risk features, PSMs alone may not be an indication for adjuvant radiotherapy.

Video: Step-By-Step: Extended PLND – Creating the Spaces

Sequencing robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection prior to radical prostatectomy: a step-by-step guide to exposure and efficiency

Stephen B. Williams, Yasar Bozkurt , Mary Achim, Grace Achim and John W. Davis

 

Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

 

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To describe a novel, step-by-step approach to robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection (ePLND) at the time of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for intermediate–high risk prostate cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The sequence of ePLND is at the beginning of the operation to take advantage of greater visibility of the deeper hypogastric planes. The urachus is left intact for an exposure/retraction point. The anatomy is described in terms of lymph nodes (LNs) that are easily retrieved vs those that require additional manipulation of the anatomy, and a determined surgeon. A representative cohort of 167 RARPs was queried for representative metrics that distinguish the ePLND: 146 primary cases and 21 with neoadjuvant systemic therapy.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range, IQR) LN yield was 22 (16–28) for primary surgeries and 21 (16–23) for neoadjuvant cases. The percentage of cases with positive LNs (pN1) was 16.4% for primary and 29% for neoadjuvant. The hypogastric LNs were involved in 75% of pN1 primary cases and uniquely positive in 33%. Each side of ePLND took the attending surgeon a median (IQR) of 16 (13–20) min and trainees 25 (24–38) min.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted ePLND before RARP provides an anatomical approach to surgical extirpation mimicking the open approach. We think this sequence offers efficiency and efficacy advantages in high-risk and select intermediate-risk patients with prostate cancer undergoing RARP.

 

Article of the Week: Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after RP and EBRT

Every Week the Editor-in-Chief selects an Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: A meta-analysis

Anthony S. Bates, Richard M. Martin* and Tim R. Terry

Department of Urology, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, and *School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement after radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

There were 1 886 patients available for analysis of surgical revision outcomes and 949 for persistent urinary incontinence (UI) outcomes from 15 and 11 studies, respectively. The mean age (sd) was 66.9 (1.4) years and the number of patients per study was 126.6 (41.7). The mean (sd, range) follow-up was 36.7 (3.9, 18–68) months. A systematic database search was conducted using keywords, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Published series of AUS implantations were retrieved, according to the inclusion criteria. The Newcastle–Ottawa Score was used to ascertain the quality of evidence for each study. Surgical results from each case series were extracted. Data were analysed using CMA® statistical software.

RESULTS

AUS revision was higher in RP + EBRT vs RP alone, with a random effects risk ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.72; P <0.050; I2 = 82.0%) and a risk difference of 16.0% (95% CI 2.05–36.01; P < 0.080). Infection/erosion contributed to the majority of surgical revision risk compared with urethral atrophy (P = 0.020). Persistent UI after implantation was greater in patients treated with EBRT (P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Men receiving RP + EBRT appear at increased risk of infection/erosion and urethral atrophy, resulting in a greater risk of surgical revision compared with RP alone. Persistent UI is more common with RP + EBRT

 

Editorial: Post-prostatectomy incontinence in the irradiated patient: more than just a drop in the ocean

Improved early detection of prostate cancer has led to an increased incidence of this disease, and an increase in the number of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). The rate of post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is difficult to determine because of the varying definitions of incontinence, but approximately one in five men require the use of pads in the long term after RP. Incontinence has a significant negative impact on quality of life, and remains many men’s greatest fear, especially for the one in four who present at the age of <65 years. While significant advancements have been made in prostate cancer treatment, strong evidence for the optimum management of PPI remains lacking. Most guidelines are based on grade B or C recommendation and many questions about its surgical management remain unanswered.

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has stood the test of time and has long been considered the ‘gold standard’ treatment for PPI, especially for those with moderate to severe incontinence. The quoted success rates achieved with this device vary from study to study based on the varying definition of ‘dry’. The use of radiotherapy (RT) after prostatectomy is generally considered to have a negative impact on its efficacy and revision rate, although some data have been conflicting. In this month’s BJUI, Bates et al. [1] present a timely and well-structured systematic review and meta-analysis of AUS placement after RP and RT. By analysing pooled results, the authors set out to clarify the effect of RT on AUS efficacy and outcomes. In total, 1886 patients from 15 studies published between 1989 and 2014 were included in the meta-analysis, including 14 studies assessing surgical revision and 11 looking at persistent urinary incontinence. No randomized controlled trials were available for analysis. Retrospective reporting and a lack of standardized postoperative validated assessments were a weakness of individual studies, and efforts to limit the effects of study heterogeneity and risk of bias were made using statistical models. The revision rate after a mean follow-up of 38.4 months was significantly higher in irradiated vs. non-irradiated men (mean 37.3 vs 19.8%; P < 0.007); the risk ratio was 1.56 and number needed to harm was 4 (i.e. one surgical revision for every four AUS devices implanted in irradiated men). Infection/erosion and urethral atrophy accounted for approximately half and one-third of all revisions respectively. Persistent urinary incontinence was also more than twice as likely in irradiated vs non-irradiated men (29.5 vs 12.1%; P = 0.003; risk ratio 2.08, number needed to harm 9).

This study highlights the significant negative impact of RT after RP on functional outcomes and its treatment. This is particularly important considering that approximately one-third of patients will require adjuvant or salvage radiotherapy at some stage after RP. The development of incontinence after RT is primarily attributable to the negative effect of radiation on bladder and urethral tissue. Unlike outcomes with regard to erectile function, the type of primary surgery performed (open vs robotic) does not appear to have any significant impact on PPI [2]. Timing of RT also does not seem to affect function, with similar rates of incontinence reported for early (<6 months after RP) vs late (>6 months after RP) irradiation reported 3 years after RT (24.5 vs 23.3%, respectively; P = 0.79) [3].

New devices, such as the male sling, have increased the options for PPI treatment. Male slings have achieved popularity because of their safety, relative ease of insertion and patients’ strong desire to void naturally without fiddling with pumps. Kumar et al. [4] reported that one in four men who were recommended an AUS as the best option by their surgeon chose a sling; 92% who were offered either also opted against the gold standard AUS. Slings, however, have not fared well in patients with severe incontinence or those who have undergone RT. Pooled analysis of the AdVance® sling reported ‘success’ rates of 56 and 54%, respectively, in these scenarios, compared with a mean overall ‘success’ rate of 75% [5]. Reported success, however, does not equate to being ‘dry’, as reported in many AUS studies, and this lack of uniformity in describing outcomes prevents adequate clarity when comparing different devices. Despite the lower success rate after RT, slings, unlike the AUS, do not appear to have any additional complications in this setting [1, 6], and sling failure does not appear to prejudice subsequent AUS placement [7].

To date, no randomized controlled trial has directly compared efficacy of the newer slings with the AUS. Well-designed trials, with standardized protocols and uniform long-term assessments of outcome, including complications and quality of life, are required to clarify their place in managing PPI. Current randomized controlled trials are evaluating these devices prospectively, and will provide much needed level 1 evidence in this field. The most interesting of these is the MASTER trial (Male synthetic sling vs Artificial urinary Sphincter Trial). This multicentre UK randomized controlled trial is for men with incontinence after prostate surgery for cancer or benign disease [8]. Patients of any age, with any level of incontinence are eligible, and previous RT is not an exclusion criterion. The trial aims to randomize 360 men and will also follow up 360 non-randomized men, and runs until 2019. This trial will help clarify the relative benefits of the devices by incontinence severity. It will also provide some prospective data on the effect of RT on outcomes, although the 2-year follow-up will be too short to evaluate this fully.

The question remains regarding which strategy is the best for post-prostatectomy irradiated patients. Until the results of good quality trials are available, the jury is out. The AUS remains the gold standard in this setting, for now. For patients with mild to moderate incontinence, the sling is an option, and offers some advantages, but offers a lower overall chance of becoming pad free. Patients must be carefully counselled about the risk/benefit of this approach compared with an AUS. Results of the MASTER trial will help better define management of this subgroup. For moderate to severe incontinence, the AUS is the gold standard, albeit with an increased risk of failure and revision. The present meta-analysis arms the clinician with much needed data to quantify the relative risk of complications and adverse outcomes in this setting, and will allow better counselling and management of patient’s expectations.

Read the full article

Majid Shabbir

Department of Urology, Guy’s Hospital, London, UK

References

1 Bates A, Martin R, Terry T. Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: a metaanalysis. BJU Int 2015; 116: 623–33

2 Haglind E, Carlsson S, Stranne J et al. Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial. Eur Urol 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo. 2015.02.029. [Epub ahead of print]

3 Sowerby RJ, Gani J, Yim H. Long-term complications in men who have early or late radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J 2014; 8: 253–8.

4 Kumar A, Litt ER, Ballert KN, Nitti VW. Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence-what do patients choose? J Urol 2009; 181: 1231–5.

5 Van Bruwaene S, Van der Aa F, De Ridder D. Review: the use of sling versus sphincter in post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2015; 116: 330–42

6 Zuckerman JM, Tisdale B, McCammon K. AdVance male sling in irradiated patients with stress urinary incontinence. Can J Urol 2011; 18: 6013–7.

7 Lentz AC, Peterson AC, Webster GD. Outcomes following artificial sphincter implantation after prior unsuccessful male sling. J Urol 2012; 187: 2149–53.

8 Abrams P. Male synthetic sling versus Artificial urinary Sphincter Trial for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery: Evaluation by Randomised controlled trial (MASTER), 2014. Available at: www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN49212975/MASTER. Accessed May 2015

 

Video: Complications following AUS placement after RP and radiotherapy

Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: a meta-analysis

Anthony S. Bates1,*, Richard M. Martin2 and Tim R. Terry1

1Department of Urology, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK 2School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Read the full article
Objective

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement after radical prostatectomy (RP) and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT).

Patients and Methods

There were 1 886 patients available for analysis of surgical revision outcomes and 949 for persistent urinary incontinence (UI) outcomes from 15 and 11 studies, respectively. The mean age (sd) was 66.9 (1.4) years and the number of patients per study was 126.6 (41.7). The mean (sd, range) follow-up was 36.7 (3.9, 18–68) months. A systematic database search was conducted using keywords, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Published series of AUS implantations were retrieved, according to the inclusion criteria. The Newcastle–Ottawa Score was used to ascertain the quality of evidence for each study. Surgical results from each case series were extracted. Data were analysed using CMA® statistical software.

Results

AUS revision was higher in RP + EBRT vs RP alone, with a random effects risk ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–2.72; P < 0.050; I2 = 82.0%) and a risk difference of 16.0% (95% CI 2.05–36.01; P < 0.080). Infection/erosion contributed to the majority of surgical revision risk compared with urethral atrophy (P = 0.020). Persistent UI after implantation was greater in patients treated with EBRT (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Men receiving RP + EBRT appear at increased risk of infection/erosion and urethral atrophy, resulting in a greater risk of surgical revision compared with RP alone. Persistent UI is more common with RP + EBRT.

 

Video: Bimanual Examination Of The Retrieved Specimen And Regional Hypothermia During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Novel Technique For Reducing Positive Surgical Margin And Achieving Pelvic Cooling

Bimanual examination of the retrieved specimen and regional hypothermia during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a novel technique for reducing positive surgical margin and achieving pelvic cooling

Wooju Jeong, Akshay Sood, Khurshid R. Ghani, Dan Pucheril, Jesse D. Sammon, Nilesh S. Gupta*, Mani Menon and James O. Peabody

Vattikuti Urology Institute and *Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

To describe a novel method of achieving pelvic hypothermia during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and a modification of technique allowing immediate organ retrieval for intraoperative examination and targeted frozen-section biopsies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Intracorporeal cooling and extraction (ICE) consists of a modification of the standard RARP technique with the use of the GelPOINT™ (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, USA), a hand access platform, which allows for delivery of ice-slush and rapid specimen extraction without compromising pneumoperitoneum.

RESULTS

The ICE technique reproducibly achieves a temperature of 15 °C in the pelvic cavity with no obvious body temperature change. Adopting this technique during RARP, there was an absolute risk reduction by 26.6% in positive surgical margin rate in patients with pT3a disease when compared with similar patients undergoing conventional RARP (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The ICE technique eliminates the potential handicap of decreased tactile sensation for oncological margins, especially in the high-risk patients. This technique allows the surgeon to immediately examine the surgical specimen after resection, and with the aid of frozen-section pathology determine if further resection is required. A prospective trial is underway in our centre to evaluate the effects of this novel technique on postoperative outcomes.

 

Article of the week: RP is safe in patients taking aspirin

Every week the Editor-in-Chief selects the Article of the Week from the current issue of BJUI. The abstract is reproduced below and you can click on the button to read the full article, which is freely available to all readers for at least 30 days from the time of this post.

In addition to the article itself, there is an accompanying editorial written by a prominent member of the urological community. This blog is intended to provoke comment and discussion and we invite you to use the comment tools at the bottom of each post to join the conversation.

Finally, the third post under the Article of the Week heading on the homepage will consist of additional material or media. This week we feature a video from Mr. Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah discussing his paper.

If you only have time to read one article this week, it should be this one.

Open and robot-assisted radical retropubic prostatectomy in men receiving ongoing low-dose aspirin medication: revisiting an old paradigm?

Sami-Ramzi Leyh-Bannurah, Jens Hansen, Hendrik Isbarn, Thomas Steuber, Pierre Tennstedt, Uwe Michl, Thorsten Schlomm*, Alexander Haese, Hans Heinzer, Hartwig Huland, Markus Graefen and Lars Budäus

Martini Clinic, Prostate Cancer Center at University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, and *Department of Urology, Section for Translational Prostate Cancer Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

Read the full article
OBJECTIVE

• To assess blood loss, transfusion rates and 90-day complication rates in patients receiving ongoing 100 mg/day aspirin medication and undergoing open radical prostatectomy (RP) or robot-assisted RP (RARP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Between February 2010 and August 2011, 2061 open RPs and 400 RARPs were performed. All patients received low-molecular-weight heparin for thrombembolism prophylaxis. Aspirin intake during surgery was recorded in 137 patients (5.5%).

• Descriptive statistics and multivariable analyses after propensity-score matching for balancing potential differences in patients with and without aspirin medication were used to assess the risk of blood loss above the median in patients undergoing open RP or RARP.

RESULTS

• The median blood loss in the open RP cohort with and without aspirin medication was 750 and 700 mL, respectively, and in the RARP cohort it was 200 and 150 mL, respectively. Within the same cohorts, transfusions were administered in 21 and 8% and 0 and 1% of patients, respectively.

• The 90-day complication rates in patients with ongoing aspirin medication were 5.8, 4.4, 7.3 and 0% for Clavien grades I, II, III and IV complications, respectively.

• In multivariable analyses and after propensity-score matching, prostate volume (odds ratio 1.03; 95% CI 1.02–1.04; P < 0.01) but not ongoing aspirin medication achieved independent predictor status for the risk of blood loss above the median.

CONCLUSIONS

• Major surgery such as open RP and RARP can be safely performed in patients with ongoing aspirin medication without greater blood loss.

• Higher 90-day complication rates were not detected in such patients.

• Differences in transfusion rates between the groups receiving and not receiving ongoing aspirin medication may be explained by a higher proportion of patients with coronary artery disease in the group receiving ongoing aspirin mediciation. This comorbidity may result in a higher peri-operative threshold for allogenic blood transfusion.

© 2022 BJU International. All Rights Reserved.