Orgasmic Dysfunction After Robot-assisted Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy

Objective: To examine characteristics of robot-assisted (RARP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) patients. Patients and Methods: We relied on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare-linked database and focused on prostate cancer patients between 2008 and 2009. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, we predicted RARP. Results: Of 5,915 patients, 3,476 (58.8%) underwent RARP and 2,439 (41.2%) ORP. Patients within intermediate (OR 1.4, p = 0.01) or highest (OR 1.5, p = 0.02) education strata and those treated by surgeons with a high volume (OR 2.2, p < 0.001) were more likely to undergo RARP. Conversely, those residing in rural areas (OR 0.7, p = 0.005) and those with clinical stage T2 or higher (OR 0.7, p = 0.006) were less likely to undergo RARP. Additionally, patients from the Southwest were less likely to undergo RARP (OR 0.4, p < 0.001), but those from the Northern Plains were more likely to undergo RARP (OR 1.4, p = 0.02) than their counterparts from the East. Finally, RARP patients were neither younger nor healthier than ORP patients. Conclusions: Several patient characteristics such as education, region of residence and population density affect the likelihood of RARP vs. ORP treatment. Similarly, clinical stage and surgeon characteristics also affect the assignment to one or other treatment modality.

The impact of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on the use and extent of pelvic lymph node dissection in the “post-dissemination” period

With the current patterns of adoption and use of robotic surgery and improvement in the overall survival of patients with prostate cancer, it is important to evaluate the immediate and long-term cost implications of treatments for patients with prostate cancer. To compare health care costs and use 1 year after open radical prostatectomy (ORP) vs robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). This retrospective cohort study used a US commercial claims database from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. A total of 11 457 men aged 18 to 64 years who underwent inpatient radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer and were continuously enrolled with medical and prescription drug coverage from 180 days before to 365 days after inpatient prostatectomy were identified. An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis was performed to examine the differences in costs and use of health care services by surgical modality. Data analysis was conducted from September 2019 to July 2020. Type of surgical procedure: ORP vs RARP. Three outcomes within 1 year after the inpatient prostatectomy were investigated: (1) total health care costs, including reimbursement paid by insurers and out of pocket by patients; (2) health care use, including inpatient readmission, emergency department, hospital outpatient, and office visits; and (3) estimated days missed from work due to health care use. Of the 11 457 patients who underwent inpatient prostatectomy, 1604 (14.0%) had ORP and 9853 (86.0%) had RARP and most patients (8467 [73.9%]) were aged 55 to 64 years. Compared with patients who underwent ORP, those who received RARP had a higher cost at the index hospitalization (mean difference, $2367; 95% CI, $1821-$2914; P < .001), but similar total cumulative costs were observed within 180 days (mean difference, $397; 95% CI, -$582 to $1375; P = .43) and 1 year after discharge (-$383; 95% CI, -$1802 to $1037; P = .60). One-year postdischarge health care use was significantly lower in the RARP compared with ORP group for mean numbers of emergency department visits (-0.09 visits; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.07 visits; P < .001) and hospital outpatient visits (-1.5 visits; -1.63 to -1.36 visits; P < .001). The reduction in use of health care services among patients who underwent RARP translated into additional savings of $2929 (95% CI, $1600-$4257; P < .001) and approximately 1.69 fewer days (95% CI, 1.49-1.89 days; P < .001) missed from work for health care visits. Total cumulative cost in this study was similar between ORP and RARP 1 year post discharge; this finding suggests that lower postdischarge health care use after RARP may offset the higher costs during the index hospitalization.

Factors Associated with the Adoption of Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy in the United States

Since the introduction of the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), the trend of minimally invasive surgery has accelerated. Recently, Intuitive Surgical launched the new da Vinci Xi platform and a prototype of a single-port surgical system. Other platforms from other robotic companies are on the horizon. The multiport surgical robotic ALF-X system (SORAR SpA, Milan, Italy) was initially introduced for gynecological surgery and was recently assessed in a preclinical animal study of robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RPN) [1,2]. The ALF-X robot consists of a remote-controlled unit with a haptic handle, a three-dimensional high-definition monitor, an infrared eye-tracking system, and four detached robotic arms. The haptic feedback allows the surgeon to feel the force and resistance to the tissue. The surgeon can move the camera by gaze, and the system includes a large set of reusable instruments. Other manufacturers include Medrobotics (Raynham, MA, USA), which received U.S. Food and Drug Administration clearance for the Flex Robotic System in July 2015. The Flex Robotic System provides surgeons with single-site access visualization of hard-to-reach anatomical locations. Titan Medical (Toronto, ON, Canada) is a public company based on Single Port Orifice Robotic Technology. The system utilizes a 25-mm single-access port that contains two articulating instruments and a three-dimensional high-definition camera. The Korean domestic manufacturer Meree Company has developed the REVO I robot system. A clinical trial for the REVO I robot has been planned to supplement the global market. Meanwhile, the Korean national evidence-based health care collaborating agency (NECA) published a preliminary report on the clinical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) from a total of five high-volume centers to provide fundamental data for instituting the national health policy. Concerning oncological outcomes, there were no significant differences in biochemical recurrence or the positive surgical margin rate. Concerning functional outcomes, RARP revealed the highest continence rate of 88.7% and 95.3% achievement of complete continence at postoperative 3 months and 3 years, respectively. Concerning cost analysis of the robotic system, with a threshold value of 30.5 million Korean won (KRW; 27,000 US dollars [USD]), a cost-effectiveness analysis of purchase among RARP, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) showed that RARP was not yet cost-effective. RARP could be cost-effective if the expenses could be reduced by 8.3 million KRW (7,400 USD). The effectiveness of the system could not offset the costs, because there was no significant difference in effectiveness among the different procedures, and the robotic cost of RARP was significantly more than that of the other procedures. However, owing to the short term of 1 year of data used for the cost-effectiveness analysis, long-term prospective study is necessary for further high-quality analysis. Recently, high-quality evidence is emerging comparing robotics with its traditional counterparts. In a study of RARP, Wallerstedt et al. [3] performed a prospective comparative trial of ORP versus RARP in a Swedish group of 14 centers including a total of 2,506 patients. The study was conducted prospectively over a 3-year period with patient-reported outcome measurement. The RARP group had less perioperative bleeding and shorter hospital stays. Reoperation during the hospital stay and seeking health care for cardiovascular reasons were more frequent after ORP. Haglind et al. [4] performed a prospective, controlled, nonrandomized trial evaluating urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction in a total of 14 centers in Sweden including 2,625 patients and concluded that RARP was beneficial in preserving erectile function compared with ORP, with no statistically significant differences in continence or surgical margins. In an analysis of RPN, Choi et al. [5] performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies and 2,240 patients. The authors concluded that RPN is more favorable than laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) in terms of a lower conversion rate to radical nephrectomy, more favorable renal function, a shorter length of hospital stay, and a shorter warm ischemia time. Potretzke and Bhayani [6] wrote an editorial comment on our previous article [5]. The authors mentioned the superior outcomes of RPN and the efficiency of excision and suturing. The true value of RPN is in its feasibility, accessibility, and learning curves, and the procedure competing with RPN now is not LPN, but rather radical nephrectomy, ablation, and observation. There will be more new robotic platforms, and new prospective randomized data will become available. The Korean Journal of Urology hopes to continue to share this knowledge on recent updates in robotic minimally invasive surgery and to enhance future perspectives on robotic minimally invasive surgery.

Superior Quality of Life and Improved Surgical Margins Are Achievable with Robotic Radical Prostatectomy After a Long Learning Curve: A Prospective Single-surgeon Study of 1552 Consecutive Cases

We studied perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications, and survival rates for open radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Taiwan’s entire 2018–2021 National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) was linked with the cancer registration file to conduct a retrospective cohort study. A total of 4883 patients with localized (or locally advanced) prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent ORP, RARP, or LRP from 2018 to 2021 were analyzed. Differences in patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were assessed before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RARP accounted for 91.3% of the surgeries, followed by LRP (4.7%) and ORP (4.3%). ORP and LRP were associated with higher blood transfusion rates, longer hospital stays, and ICU admissions compared with RARP. Post-IPTW, RARP exhibited significantly lower rates of perioperative complications and postoperative readmissions compared with ORP and LRP. The postoperative risk profile for RARP was lower compared with those for ORP and LRP.

Background/Objectives: Adverse in-hospital outcomes at radical prostatectomy have not been specifically addressed in young patients aged 40-49 years (quadragenarians). Additionally, no comparison between robot-assisted (RARP) vs. open radical prostatectomy (ORP) has been reported in this population. Methods: Descriptive analyses, propensity score matching (PSM), and multivariable logistic/Poisson regression models addressed quadragenarians undergoing RARP or ORP within the National Inpatient Sample (2009-2019). Results: Of 5426 quadragenarians, 4083 (75.2%) and 1343 (24.8%) underwent RARP and ORP, respectively. The proportion of RARP increased from 68.1 to 84.5% (2009-2019, EAPC: +2.8%, p < 0.001). Adverse in-hospital outcomes after RARP were invariably lower than those after ORP. Specifically, the rates of overall complications (7.8 vs. 13.4%, Δ -5.6%, multivariable odds ratio (OR): 0.54), blood transfusions (1.2 vs. 6.3%, Δ -5.1%, OR: 0.21), and length of stay (LOS) > 2 days (10.6 vs. 28.7%, Δ -18.1%, OR: 0.32) were lower after RARP than after ORP (all p < 0.001). After additional one-to-one PSM between ORP and RARP patients, virtually the same results were reported (overall complications: 7.0 vs. 13.4%, Δ -6.4%, OR: 0.49; blood transfusion rates: 1.5 vs. 6.3%, Δ -4.8%, OR: 0.23; LOS > 2 days: 10.9 vs. 28.7%, Δ -17.8%, OR: 0.30). Conversely, RARP use resulted in higher total hospital charges (USD 43,690 vs. 36,840, Δ USD +6850, IRR: 1.18; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Quadragenarians exhibited a more favorable adverse in-hospital outcome profile after RARP vs. ORP. These advantages are offset by a small, albeit significant, increase in total hospital charges.

To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer. We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We included all randomized or pseudo-randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short-term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] -1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: -1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16-1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD -1.05, 95% CI: -1.42 to -0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD -0.78, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI: -2.19 to -1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12-0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78-48 fewer). There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions.

Risk and Prevention of Acute Urinary Retention After Robotic Prostatectomy

Objectives: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been shown to reduce blood loss, peri-operative complications and length of stay when compared to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). We sought to determine whether the reported benefits of RARP over ORP translate to obese patients. Patients and Methods: We utilized the 2009-2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample to identify all obese men with prostate cancer who underwent ORP and RARP. Our primary outcome was the presence of a peri-operative adverse event (i.e. blood transfusion, complication, prolonged length of stay). We fit multivariable logistic regression models to examine whether RARP in obese patients was independently associated with decreased odds of all three outcomes. Results: We identified 9,108 obese patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. On multivariable analysis, the use of RARP in the obese population was not independently associated with decreased odds of developing a peri-operative complication (OR = 0.81, CI: 0.58-1.13, p = 0.209). RARP was, however, associated with decreased odds of blood transfusion (OR = 0.17, CI: 0.10-0.30, p < 0.001) and prolonged length of stay (OR = 0.28, CI: 0.20-0.40, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that in obese patients, the use of RARP may reduce length of stay and blood transfusions compared to ORP. Both approaches, however, are associated with similar odds of developing a complication.

To perform a contemporary critical appraisal of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RaRP) through a review of the recent literature. Most studies of RaRP are observational and report perioperative, functional and short-term oncological outcomes. RaRP is associated with less blood loss and blood transfusion than open radical prostatectomy (ORP), has a positive margin rate of 9.4-20.9%, potency rate of 79.2-80.4% at 1 year and a continence rate of 90.2-97% at 1 year. Costs of the da Vinci system remain a limitation of this technique. RaRP has shown rapid dissemination over the past few years in the US urological community. However, prospective randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up of RaRP, ORP and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are still necessary.

PurposeAlthough surgical procedures including robotic surgery in radical prostatectomy have evolved, urinary incontinence after surgery are still not resolved. This study was to evaluate the risk of clinically significant incontinence after radical prostatectomy according to various procedural types.Materials and MethodsThe retrospective cohort study included prostate cancer (n=14,484) in South Korea between 2002 and 2017 as shown in the National Health Insurance Data. Clinically significant incontinence was defined as postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) requiring anti-incontinence surgery or received specific medication within months after surgery. The prevalence and relative risks of PPI were evaluated according to different procedural types after propensity score matching (PSM). The risks of PPI were compared among those difference procedural types including robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) using the hazard ratio (HR).ResultsAmong 25,903 cohort participants including RALP (n=18,937), ORP (n=4,979), and LRP (n=1,987), overall prevalence of PPI was 2.06% (n=536). According to procedural types, prevalence of PPI in LRP, RARP, and ORP were 3.67%, 1.81%, and 2.43%, respectively. Risk of PPI after PSM and after adjustment of age, Charlson comorbidity index, and hospital volume was 0.456 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.30–0.69) between LRP and RARP, 0.67 (95% CI 0.46–0.98) between LRP and ORP, and 1.404 (1.06–1.86) between RARP and ORP. Adjusted HR after PSM was 0.495 (95% CI 0.33–0.74) between LRP and RARP, 0.674 (95% CI 0.46–0.98) between LRP and ORP, 1.242 (95% CI 0.94–1.64) between RARP and ORP.ConclusionsThe prevalence of PPI which needed anti-incontinence surgery was not low among who received radical prostatectomy. Those patients who underwent LRP had higher risk for PPI than those who underwent ORP. However, further research is required to fully determine whether RARP can help to prevent PPI.

A clinical evaluation of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in located prostate cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Vesicourethral Anastomotic Stenosis After Open or Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Retropubic Prostatectomy—Results from the Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open Trial