Efficiency of the Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) Score in Predicting Postoperative Complications After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Overview

Journal Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg

Specialties Emergency Medicine
General Surgery

Date 2024 Jun 12

PMID 38863296

Authors

Suleyman Bulut

Yalcin Kizilkan

Huseyin Gultekin

Ali Yasin Ozercan

Burak Koseoglu

Halil Demircakan

Tanju Keten

Unsal Eroglu

Ozer Guzel

Altug Tuncel

Cuneyt Ozden

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) is increasingly becoming the standard surgical treatment for prostate cancer. While some risk factors for postoperative complications of RARP have been identified, no scoring model that incorporates both preoperative physical status of the patient and intraoperative risk factors has been developed. The Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) score was initially described to predict postoperative complications after gastrointestinal surgical procedures. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the E-PASS score in predicting postoperative complications of RARP.

Methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted on 204 patients who underwent RARP between 2019 and 2022. Demographic data, parameters indicating patients' preoperative physical condition, and intraoperative risk factors were analyzed. The E-PASS score and subscores were calculated for each patient.

Results: Of the patients, 164 (80.4%) were discharged without any postoperative complications (Group 1), and 40 (19.6%) experienced various degrees of complications (Group 2). Patients in Group 2 had higher rates of previous abdominal surgery, elevated Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance scores, longer surgical durations, and higher E-PASS scores. To assess the effectiveness of the Comprehensive Risk Score (CRS) as a predictive factor for postoperative complications, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed with a 95% confidence interval (CI), and a cut-off value was established. The cut-off value for CRS was determined to be -0.0345 (area under the curve [AUC]=0.783, CI: 0.713-0.853; p<0.001). Patients with a CRS higher than the cut-off value had a 16.4 times higher rate of postoperative complications after RARP (95% CI: 5.58-48.5).

Conclusion: The E-PASS scoring model successfully predicts postoperative complications in patients undergoing RARP by using preoperative data about the physical status of the patient and surgical risk factors. The E-PASS score and its subscores could be utilized as objective criteria to determine the risk of postoperative complications before and immediately after surgery.

References

Tabibian N, Swehli E, Boyd A, Umbreen A, Tabibian J . Abdominal adhesions: A practical review of an often overlooked entity. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2017; 15:9-13. PMC: 5295619. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2017.01.021. View

Hirose J, Mizuta H, Ide J, Nomura K . Evaluation of estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) to predict the postoperative risk for hip fracture in elder patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2008; 128(12):1447-52. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-007-0551-0. View

Ramsay C, Pickard R, Robertson C, Close A, Vale L, Armstrong N . Systematic review and economic modelling of the relative clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery for removal of the prostate in men with localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 2012; 16(41):1-313. PMC: 4780976. DOI: 10.3310/hta16410. View

Maynou L, Mehtsun W, Serra-Sastre V, Papanicolas I . Patterns of adoption of robotic radical prostatectomy in the United States and England. Health Serv Res. 2021; 56 Suppl 3:1441-1461. PMC: 8579206. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13706. View

Nakanishi K, Kanda M, Ito S, Mochizuki Y, Teramoto H, Ishigure K . E-PASS scoring system serves as a predictor of short- and long-term outcomes in gastric cancer surgery. Surg Today. 2021; 52(6):914-922. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-021-02394-3. View

Rassweiler J, Seemann O, Schulze M, Teber D, Hatzinger M, Frede T . Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. J Urol. 2003; 169(5):1689-93. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000062614.56629.41. View

Kasap Y, Senel S, Tastemur S, Olcucuoglu E . Feasibility of E-PASS score to predict postoperative complications in laparoscopic nephrectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 2022; 54(9):2149-2156. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-022-03269-3. View

Hung C, Yang C, Cheng C, Ou Y . Bowel complication during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Anticancer Res. 2011; 31(10):3497-501. View

Ilic D, Evans S, Allan C, Jung J, Murphy D, Frydenberg M . Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 9:CD009625. PMC: 6486168. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2. View

10.

Klevecka V, Burmester L, Musch M, Roggenbuck U, Kroepfl D . Intraoperative and early postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urol Int. 2007; 79(3):217-25. DOI: 10.1159/000107953. View

11.

Tominaga T, Takeshita H, Takagi K, Kunizaki M, To K, Abo T . E-PASS score as a useful predictor of postoperative complications and mortality after colorectal surgery in elderly patients. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015; 31(2):217-25. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-015-2456-7. View

12.

Box G, Ahlering T . Robotic radical prostatectomy: long-term outcomes. Curr Opin Urol. 2008; 18(2):173-9. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e3282f517d6. View

13.

Pasticier G, Rietbergen J, Guillonneau B, Fromont G, Menon M, Vallancien G . Robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in men. Eur Urol. 2001; 40(1):70-4. DOI: 10.1159/000049751. View

14.

Andonian S, Okeke Z, Okeke D, Rastinehad A, VanderBrink B, Richstone L . Device failures associated with patient injuries during robot-assisted laparoscopic surgeries: a comprehensive review of FDA MAUDE database. Can J Urol. 2008; 15(1):3912-6. View

15.

Jemal A, Bray F, Center M, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D . Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(2):69-90. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20107. View

16.

Hu J, Nelson R, Wilson T, Kawachi M, Ramin S, Lau C . Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2006; 175(2):541-6. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00156-4. View

17.

Kondo H, Hirano Y, Ishii T, Hara K, Obara N, Wang L . E-PASS Scoring System May Be Useful for Prediction of Postoperative Complications in Super Elderly Colorectal Cancer Surgery Patients. J Anus Rectum Colon. 2020; 4(3):137-144. PMC: 7390610. DOI: 10.23922/jarc.2020-017. View

18.

El-Hakim A, Leung R, Tewari A . Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2005; 6(1):11-20. DOI: 10.1586/14737140.6.1.11. View

19.

Hirose J, Taniwaki T, Fujimoto T, Okada T, Nakamura T, Usuku K . Validity of E-PASS System for Postoperative Morbidity of Spinal Surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 28(10):E595-600. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000056. View

20.

Basiri A, de la Rosette J, Tabatabaei S, Woo H, Laguna M, Shemshaki H . Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?. World J Urol. 2018; 36(4):609-621. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2174-1. View