» Articles » PMID: 34631541

Functional and Oncological Outcomes Following Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localized Prostate Cancer With a Large Prostate Volume: A Retrospective Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Ups

Overview
Journal Front Oncol
Specialty Oncology
Date 2021 Oct 11
PMID 34631541
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: We aimed to analyze the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) for patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) characterized by a large prostate volume (PV; ≥50 ml) over a minimum of 2 years follow-up.

Materials And Methods: Patients undergoing RARP and LRP for localized PCa with a large PV were included in the final analysis. The perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were analyzed between the two groups.

Results: All operations were successfully completed without open conversion in both groups. The mean operative time and estimated blood loss in the RARP group were significantly decreased compared to those in the LRP group (139.4 . 159.0 min, = 0.001, and 124.2 . 157.3 ml, = 0.003, respectively). Patients in the RARP arm had significantly lower proportions of grade II or lower and of higher than grade II postoperative complications compared with those in the LRP group (7.9% . 17.1%, = 0.033, and 1.6% . 6.7%, = 0.047, respectively). No significant differences in terms of the rates of pT3 disease, positive surgical margin, and positive lymph node were noted between the two groups. Moreover, no significant difference in the median specimen Gleason score was observed between the RARP and LRP groups (6 . 7, = 0.984). RARP . LRP resulted in higher proportions of urinary continence upon catheter removal (48.4% . 33.3%, = 0.021) and at 3 (65.1% . 50.5%, = 0.025) and 24 (90.5% . 81.0%, = 0.037) months post-operation. The median erectile function scores at 6 and 24 months post-operation in the RARP arm were also significantly higher than those in the LRP arm (15 . 15, = 0.042, and 15 . 13, = 0.026, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analyses indicated that the biochemical recurrence-free survival and accumulative proportion of continence were statistically comparable between the two groups ( = 0.315 and = 0.020, respectively).

Conclusions: For surgically managing localized PCa with a large prostate (≥50 ml), RARP had a tendency toward a lower risk of postoperative complications and better functional preservation without cancer control being compromised when compared to LRP.

Citing Articles

Prostate Volume Influence on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing RARP: A Monocentric Serial Analysis of 500 Cases.

Farzat M, Rosenbauer J, Tanislav C, Wagenlehner F J Clin Med. 2023; 12(7).

PMID: 37048575 PMC: 10095532. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12072491.


Retzius-sparing robotic prostatectomy is associated with higher positive surgical margin rate in anterior tumors, but not in posterior tumors, compared to conventional anterior robotic prostatectomy.

Oshima M, Washino S, Nakamura Y, Konishi T, Saito K, Miyagawa T Prostate Int. 2023; 11(1):13-19.

PMID: 36910901 PMC: 9995683. DOI: 10.1016/j.prnil.2022.07.005.


Functional Preservation and Oncologic Control following Robot-Assisted versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Intermediate- and High-Risk Localized Prostate Cancer: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis.

Deng W, Chen R, Zhu K, Cheng X, Xiong Y, Liu W J Oncol. 2021; 2021:4375722.

PMID: 34970314 PMC: 8714374. DOI: 10.1155/2021/4375722.


Independent Factors Affecting Postoperative Short-Term Urinary Continence Recovery after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Deng W, Chen R, Jiang X, Zheng P, Zhu K, Zhou X J Oncol. 2021; 2021:9523442.

PMID: 34876905 PMC: 8645355. DOI: 10.1155/2021/9523442.

References
1.
Moschini M, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, Fossati N, Cucchiara V, Damiano R . Importance of prostate volume in the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2015; 22(6):555-61. DOI: 10.1111/iju.12748. View

2.
Carbonara U, Srinath M, Crocerossa F, Ferro M, Cantiello F, Lucarelli G . Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes. World J Urol. 2021; 39(10):3721-3732. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03687-5. View

3.
Ilic D, Djulbegovic M, Jung J, Hwang E, Zhou Q, Cleves A . Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018; 362:k3519. PMC: 6283370. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k3519. View

4.
Deng W, Zhou Z, Zhong J, Li J, Liu X, Chen L . Retroperitoneal laparoscopic partial versus radical nephrectomy for large (≥ 4 cm) and anatomically complex renal tumors: A propensity score matching study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019; 46(7):1360-1365. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.12.010. View

5.
Deng W, Zhang C, Jiang H, Li Y, Zhu K, Liu X . Transvesical Versus Posterior Approach to Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Retrospective Comparison With a 12-Month Follow-Up. Front Oncol. 2021; 11:641887. PMC: 8082308. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.641887. View