Robot-assisted versus three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 12-month outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.
functional outcome
laparoscopic prostatectomy
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
pubmed:
18
7
2023
medline:
18
7
2023
entrez:
18
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare functional and oncological outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) to three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D-LRP) at 12 months after surgery. Prospective randomised single-centre study of 145 consecutive men referred to radical prostatectomy in a tertiary referral centre in Finland. Patients were randomised 1:1 to the RALP (N = 75) and 3D-LRP (N = 70) groups. The primary outcome was urinary continence evaluated with the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 26-item version (EPIC-26) incontinence domain score at 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the use of protective pads at 12 months after surgery, EPIC-26 domain scores of irritative/obstructive, bowel, sexual and hormonal symptoms, positive surgical margin (PSM) rate, and biochemical recurrence (BCR). Complication frequency within the 3-month period after surgery was evaluated according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Statistical significance between groups was analysed using Mann-Whitney, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. The trial was terminated after interim analysis based on no statistically significant difference in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence domain scores. Altogether 145 patients of the target accrual of 280 patients were recruited. Postoperative continence at 12 months after surgery according to the EPIC-26 incontinence domain was 79.25 in both groups (P = 0.4). Between group difference was -5.8 (95% confidence interval -15.2 to 3.6). There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of PSM or BCR between the two surgical modality groups. We were unable to demonstrate a difference between the RALP and 3D-LRP groups for functional and oncological outcomes at 12 months after surgery.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
505-511Subventions
Organisme : Finnish Urological Association
Organisme : Hospital District of South Ostrobothnia, Finland
Organisme : Tampere University Hospital (Tays) Research, Development and Innovation Centre.
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.
Références
Barsouk A, Padala SA, Vakiti A et al. Epidemiology, staging and management of prostate cancer. Med Sci (Basel) 2020; 8: E28
Kupelian PA, Elshaikh M, Reddy CA, Zippe C, Klein EA. Comparison of the efficacy of local therapies for localized prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen era: a large single-institution experience with radical prostatectomy and external-beam radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 3376-3385
Walsh PC, Partin AW, Epstein JI. Cancer control and quality of life following anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy: results at 10 years. J Urol 1994; 152(5 Pt 2): 1831-1836
Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, Kallidonis P, Liatsikos EN. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: the University of Leipzig experience of 2000 cases. J Endourol 2008; 22: 2319-2326
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S et al. Vattikuti institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 648-657
Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016; 388: 1057-1066
Forsmark A, Gehrman J, Angenete E et al. Health economic analysis of open and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for prostate cancer within the prospective multicentre LAPPRO trial. Eur Urol 2018; 74: 816-824
Nyberg M, Hugosson J, Wiklund P et al. Functional and oncologic outcomes between open and robotic radical prostatectomy at 24-month follow-up in the Swedish LAPPRO trial. Eur Urol Oncol 2018; 1: 353-360
Stolzenburg JU, Holze S, Neuhaus P et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery: outcomes from the first multicentre, randomised, patient-blinded controlled trial in radical prostatectomy (LAP-01). Eur Urol 2021; 79: 750-759
Stolzenburg JU, Holze S, Arthanareeswaran VKA et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 12-month outcomes of the multicentre randomised controlled LAP-01 trial. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8: 1583-1590
Haapiainen H, Murtola TJ, Raitanen M. 3D laparoscopic prostatectomy: a prospective single-surgeon learning curve in the first 200 cases with oncologic and functional results. Scand J Urol 2021; 55: 242-248
Haapiainen H, Kaipia A, Murtola T et al. 3D laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of multicentre study. Scand J Urol 2022; 56: 176-181
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 187-196
Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, Skarecky DW, Clayman RV. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology 2003; 61: 699-702
Rocco F, Rocco B. Anatomical reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2009; 104: 274-281
Prostate Cancer Nomograms: Pre-Radical Prostatectomy ¦ Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center [Internet]. Available at: https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate/pre_op [cited 2022 Dec 12]
Sanda MG. Scoring instructions for the expanded prostate cancer index composite. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002. https://medicine.umich.edu/sites/default/files/content/downloads/Scoring%20Instructions%20for%20the%20EPIC%2026.pdf
Rechtman M, Forbes A, Millar JL et al. Comparison of urinary and sexual patient-reported outcomes between open radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity score matched, population-based study in Victoria. BMC Urol 2022; 22: 18
Chien GW, Slezak JM, Harrison TN et al. Health-related quality of life outcomes from a contemporary prostate cancer registry in a large diverse population. BJU Int 2017; 120: 520-529
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: 405-417
Hagman A, Lantz A, Carlsson S et al. Urinary continence recovery and oncological outcomes after surgery for prostate cancer analysed by risk category: results from the LAParoscopic prostatectomy robot and open trial. World J Urol 2021; 39: 3239-3249
Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N et al. Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 838-846
Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 702-707
Porpiglia F, Morra I, Lucci Chiarissi M et al. Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 606-614
Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R et al. Five-year outcomes for a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus 2018; 4: 80-86
Carbonara U, Srinath M, Crocerossa F et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes. World J Urol 2021; 39: 3721-3732
Murphy DG, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters JS, Costello AJ. Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1358-1367
Fischer B, Engel N, Fehr JL, John H. Complications of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2008; 26: 595-602
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: 431-452