Role of pelvic drain and timing of urethral catheter removal following RARP: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
pelvic drain
perioperative complication
prostate cancer
robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
urethral catheter
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2023
08 2023
Historique:
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
5
4
2023
entrez:
4
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To assess the clinical value of routine pelvic drain (PD) placement and early removal of urethral catheter (UC) in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), as perioperative management such as the necessity of PD or optimal timing for UC removal remains highly variable. Multiple databases were searched for articles published before March 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they investigated the differential rate of postoperative complications between patients with/without routine PD placement and with/without early UC removal, defined as UC removal at 2-4 days after RARP. Overall, eight studies comprising 5112 patients were eligible for the analysis of PD placement, and six studies comprising 2598 patients were eligible for the analysis of UC removal. There were no differences in the rate of any complications (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-1.00), severe complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III; pooled OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.54-1.69), all and/or symptomatic lymphocele (pooled OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50-1.33; and pooled OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26-1.29, respectively) between patients with or without routine PD placement. Furthermore, avoiding PD placement decreased the rate of postoperative ileus (pooled OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.91). Early removal of UC resulted in an increased likelihood of urinary retention (OR 6.21, 95% CI 3.54-10.9) in retrospective, but not in prospective studies. There were no differences in anastomosis leakage and early continence rates between patients with or those without early removal of UC. There is no benefit for routine PD placement after standard RARP in the published articles. Early removal of UC seems possible with the caveat of the increased risk of urinary retention, while the effect on medium-term continence is still unclear. These data may help guide the standardisation of postoperative procedures by avoiding unnecessary interventions, thereby reducing potential complications and associated costs.
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
132-145Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer-2020 update. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2021; 79: 243-62
Mazzone E, Mistretta FA, Knipper S et al. Contemporary national assessment of robot-assisted surgery rates and total hospital charges for major surgical uro-oncological procedures in the United States. J Endourol 2019; 33: 438-47
Ploussard G, Grabia A, Beauval JB et al. A 5-year contemporary nationwide evolution of the radical prostatectomy landscape. Eur Urol Open Sci 2021; 34: 1-4
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 405-17
Lantz A, Bock D, Akre O et al. Functional and oncological outcomes after open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: 8-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2021; 80: 650-60
Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 431-52
Ghanem S, Namdarian B, Challacombe B. To drain or not to drain after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy? That is the question. BJU Int 2018; 121: 321-2
Nosov AK, Reva SA, Berkut MV, Petrov SB. Reply to review of the article "early removal of urethral catheter after endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy". Onkourologiya 2019; 15: 65
Charoenkwan K, Kietpeerakool C. Retroperitoneal drainage versus no drainage after pelvic lymphadenectomy for the prevention of lymphocyst formation in women with gynaecological malignancies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 6(6): CD007387
Kowalewski KF, Hendrie JD, Nickel F et al. Prophylactic abdominal or retroperitoneal drain placement in major uro-oncological surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on radical prostatectomy, cystectomy and partial nephrectomy. World J Urol 2020; 38: 1905-17
Messager M, Sabbagh C, Denost Q et al. Is there still a need for prophylactic intra-abdominal drainage in elective major gastro-intestinal surgery? J Visc Surg 2015; 152: 305-13
Peng S, Cheng Y, Yang C et al. Prophylactic abdominal drainage for pancreatic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (8): CD010583
Zhong W, Roberts MJ, Saad J et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of pelvic drain insertion after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2020; 34: 401-8
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials 2007; 28: 105-14
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-88
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-60
Alnazari M, Zanaty M, Ajib K, El-Hakim A, Zorn KC. The risk of urinary retention following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and its impact on early continence outcomes. J Can Urol Assoc 2018; 12: E121-5
Gratzke C, Dovey Z, Novara G et al. Early catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes for the Aalst technique (ECaRemA study). Eur Urol 2016; 69: 917-23
Harke NN, Wagner C, Liakos N et al. Superior early and long-term continence following early micturition on day 2 after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a randomized prospective trial. World J Urol 2021; 39: 771-7
Khemees TA, Novak R, Abaza R. Risk and prevention of acute urinary retention after robotic prostatectomy. J Urol 2013; 189: 1432-6
Lenart S, Berger I, Bohler J et al. Ideal timing of indwelling catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with a running barbed suture technique: a prospective analysis of 425 consecutive patients. World J Urol 2020; 38: 2177-83
Lista G, Lughezzani G, Buffi NM et al. Early catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective single-institutional randomized trial (Ripreca study). Eur Urol Focus 2020; 6: 259-66
Chenam A, Yuh B, Zhumkhawala A et al. Prospective randomised non-inferiority trial of pelvic drain placement vs no pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2018; 121: 357-64
Danuser H, Di Pierro GB, Stucki P, Mattei A. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and various radical prostatectomy techniques: is pelvic drainage necessary? BJU Int 2013; 111: 963-9
Huang MM, Patel HD, Su ZT et al. A prospective comparative study of routine versus deferred pelvic drain placement after radical prostatectomy: impact on complications and opioid use. World J Urol 2021; 39: 1845-51
Iwamoto H, Kadono Y, Nakagawa R et al. Examination of necessity for pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. In Vivo 2021; 35: 2895-9
Kirmiz SW, Babitz S, Linsell S et al. Regular vs. selective use of closed suction drains following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results from a regional quality improvement collaborative. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2020; 23: 151-9
Makita N, Kubota M, Murata S et al. Necessity of pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Hinyokika Kiyo 2020; 66: 283-7
Musser JE, Assel M, Guglielmetti GB et al. Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2014; 28: 1333-7
Porcaro AB, Siracusano S, Bizzotto L et al. Is a drain needed after robotic radical prostatectomy with or without pelvic lymph node dissection? Results of a single-center randomized clinical trial. J Endourol 2021; 35: 922-8
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128: 492-7
Elhage O, Challacombe B, Shortland A, Dasgupta P. An assessment of the physical impact of complex surgical tasks on surgeon errors and discomfort: a comparison between robot-assisted, laparoscopic and open approaches. BJU Int 2015; 115: 274-81
Park YS, Oo AM, Son SY et al. Is a robotic system really better than the three-dimensional laparoscopic system in terms of suturing performance?: Comparison among operators with different levels of experience. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 1485-90
Lepor H, Nieder AM, Fraiman MC. Early removal of urinary catheter after radical retropubic prostatectomy is both feasible and desirable. Urology 2001; 58: 425-9
Souto CA, Rhoden EL, De Conti R et al. Urethral catheter removal 7 or 14 days after radical retropubic prostatectomy: clinical implications and complications in a randomized study. Rev Hosp Clin Fac Med Sao Paulo 2004; 59: 262-5
Noguchi M, Shimada A, Yahara J, Suekane S, Noda S. Early catheter removal 3 days after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Int J Urol 2004; 11: 983-8
Tiguert R, Rigaud J, Fradet Y. Safety and outcome of early catheter removal after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2004; 63: 513-7
Araki M, Manoharan M, Vyas S, Nieder AM, Soloway MS. A pelvic drain can often be avoided after radical retropubic prostatectomy-an update in 552 cases. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 1241-7
Savoie M, Soloway MS, Kim SS, Manoharan M. A pelvic drain may be avoided after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2003; 170: 112-4
Montgomery JS, Gayed BA, Daignault S et al. Early urinary retention after catheter removal following radical prostatectomy predicts for future symptomatic urethral stricture formation. Urology 2007; 70: 324-7
Wang R, Wood DP Jr, Hollenbeck BK et al. Risk factors and quality of life for post-prostatectomy vesicourethral anastomotic stenoses. Urology 2012; 79: 449-57
Fischer B, Engel N, Fehr JL, John H. Complications of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2008; 26: 595-602
Patel R, Fiske J, Lepor H. Tamsulosin reduces the incidence of acute urinary retention following early removal of the urinary catheter after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003; 62: 287-91
Brassetti A, Proietti F, Cardi A et al. Removing the urinary catheter on post-operative day 2 after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a feasibility study from a single high-volume referral centre. J Robot Surg 2018; 12: 467-73
Checcucci E, Pecoraro A, Manfredi M et al. The importance of anatomical reconstruction for continence recovery after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis from referral centers. Minerva Urol Nephrol 2021; 73: 165-77
Li Z, Li K, Wu W et al. The comparison of transurethral versus suprapubic catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Transl Androl Urol 2019; 8: 476-88
Zhao Y, Zhang S, Liu B, Li J, Hong H. Clinical efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol 2020; 18: 131