COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES AFTER RETROPUBIC AND ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL NERVE-SPARING PROSTATECTOMY CONDUCTED BY SURGEONS WITH TOTAL CASELOADS OF OVER 1000 PROSTATECTOMIES


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Aim To compare the functional outcomes of bilateral nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) at 12 months after surgery. Materials and methods This is a retrospective study of two groups, each of 50 sexually active patients with localized low risk prostate cancer. The first group comprised patients who underwent RRP, while the second underwent RARP. All operations were carried out sequentially from January to August 2015 using nerve-sparing technique. The study involved only two surgeons each having a total caseload of over 1000 prostatectomies of one of the two types. Patients of each group were operated on only by one of the two surgeons. Adjusted for negative treatment outcomes, the between-group comparison was conducted regarding the number of continent patients, temporal changes in urinary function, the number of patients with restored erectile function and temporal changes in its recovery. Results At 12 months after surgery, complete continence was reported in 49 (98%) patients of the RARP group and in 48 (96%) patients of the RRP group. Among patients with restored continence, the time to attain complete continence was 4 months in the RARP group and 6 months in the RRP group (p<0.05). Sexual function recovery at 12 months follow-up after surgery was found satisfactory in 37 (74%) patients of the RARP group and in 12 (24%) of the RRP group. Recovery of erectile function after RARP was faster: in the RARP group erections at 3 months were reported in 32% of patients, while in the RRP group only in 4% (p<0.05). Conclusions The study findings showed the superiority of RARP over RRP performed by nerve-sparing technique in restoring continence and erectile function.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

D. Yu Pushkar

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: pushkardm@mail.ru
Corr.-Member of the RAS, Dr.Med.Sci., Prof., Head of the Department of Urology Moscow, Russia

V. V Dyakov

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: dr.diakov@gmail.com
PhD, Associate Professor at the Department of Urology Moscow, Russia

A. O Vasilyev

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: alexvasilyev@me.com
PhD, Teaching Assistant at the Department of Urology Moscow, Russia

D. V Kotenko

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: Kotenko.D.V@maiI.ru
Senior Laboratory Assistant at the Department of Urology Moscow, Russia

References

  1. EAU Guidelines. Guidelines on Prostate cancer [Electronic resource]. Vers 2014. URL: http://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/
  2. Thorsteinsdottir T., Stranne J., Carlsson S., Anderberg B., Björholt I., Damber J.E., Hugosson J., Wilderäng U, Wiklund P., Steineck G., Haglind E. LAPPRO: a prospective multicentre comparative study of robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2011;45(2):102-112.
  3. Tewari A., Srivasatava A., Menon M. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int. 2003;92:205-210.
  4. Ficarra V., Novara G., Artibani W., Cestari A., Galfano A., Graefen M., Guazzoni G., Guillonneau B., Menon M., Montorsi F., Patel V., Rassweiler J., Van Poppel H. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur. Urol. 2009;55:1037-1063.
  5. Walz J., Burnett A.L., Costello A.J., Eastham J.A., Graefen M., Guillonneau B., Menon M., Montorsi F., Myers R.P., Rocco B., Villers A. Acritical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2010;57(2):179-192.
  6. Takenaka A., Tewari A., Hara R., Leung R.A., Kurokawa K., Murakami G., Fujisawa M. Pelvic autonomic nerve mapping around the prostate by intraoperative electrical stimulation with simultaneous measurement of intracavernous and intraurethral pressure. J Urol. 2007;177:225.
  7. Chung J.S., Kim W.T., Ham W.S., Yu H.S., Chae Y., Chung S.H., Choi Y.D. Comparison of oncological results, functional outcomes, and complications for transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon’s experience. J Endourol. 2011;25:787-792.
  8. Koliakos N., Mottrie A., Buffi N., De Naeyer G., Willemsen P., Fonteyne E. Posterior and anterior fixation ofthe urethra during robotic prostatectomy improves early continence rates. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2010;44:5-10.
  9. Menon M., Muhletaler F., Campos M., Peabody J.O. Assessment ofearly continence after reconstruction of the periprostatic tissues in patients undergoing computer assisted (robotic) prostatectomy: results of a 2 group parallel randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2008;180:1018-1023.
  10. Xylinas E., Durand X., Ploussard G., Campeggi A., Allory Y., Vordos D., Hoznek A., Abbou C.C., de la Taille A., Salomon L. Evaluation of combined oncologic and functional outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: trifecta rate of achieving continence, potency and cancer control. Urol Oncol. 2013;31(1):99-103.
  11. Hu J.C., Gu X., Lipsitz S.R., Barry M.J., D’Amico A.V., Weinberg A.C., Keating N.L. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009;302:1557-1564.
  12. Rocco B., Matei D.V., Melegari S., Ospina J.C., Mazzoleni F., Errico G., Mastropasqua M., Santoro L., Detti S., de Cobelli O. Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 2009;104:991-995.
  13. Di Pierro G.B., Baumeister P., Stucki P., Beatrice J., Danuser H., Mattei A. A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot- assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol. 2011;59(1):1-6.
  14. Kim I. Y., Hwang E.A., Mmeje C., Ercolani M., Lee D.H. Impact of posterior urethral plate repair on continence following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51:427-431.
  15. Dubbelman Y.D., Dohle G.R., Schro "der F.H. Sexual function before and after radical retropubic prostatectomy: a systematic review of prognostic indicators for a successful outcome. Eur Urol. 2006;50:711-720.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies