OBJECTIVES: To investigate the benefit of single-port robotic radical prostatectomy and the impact on outcome compared to multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy.
METHODS: Based on PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. Finally, we considered the controlled studies with two cohorts (one cohort for single-port RARP and the other cohort for multiple-port RARP). For statistical analysis, Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4 was used. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS: Five non-randomized controlled studies with 666 patients were included. Single-port robotic radical prostatectomy was associated with shorter hospital stays. Only 60.6% of single-port patients (109/180) required analgesia compared to 90% (224/249) of multiple-port patients (Z = 3.50; p = 0.0005; 95% CI 0.07:0.47). Opioid administration was also significantly lower in single-port patients, 26.2% (34/130) vs. 56.6% (77/136) (Z = 4.90; p < 0.00001; 95% CI 0.15:-0.44) There was no significant difference in operative time, blood loss, complication rate, positive surgical margin rate, or continence at day 90.
CONCLUSION: The available data on single-port robotic radical prostatectomy is very limited. However, it seems comparable to the multiple-port platform in terms of short-term outcomes when performed with expert surgeons. Single-port prostatectomies might provide a shorter hospital stay and a lower requirement for opioids; however, randomized trials with long-term follow-up are mandatory for valid comparisons.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Eligible publications reporting the overall survival (OS) and/or disease-specific survival (DSS) were included. A total of 14 studies, including 17,869 patients, were considered for analysis. The impact of therapeutic modalities on survival was assessed, with a risk of bias assessment according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS: For RP, RT, and HT, the mean 10-year OS was 70.7% (95% CI 61.3-80.2), 65.8% (95% CI 48.1-83.3), and 22.6% (95% CI 4.9-40.3; p = 0.001), respectively. The corresponding 10-year DSS was 84.1% (95% CI 75.1-93.2), 89.4% (95% CI 70.1-108.6), and 50.4% (95% CI 31.2-69.6; p = 0.0127), respectively. Among all treatment combinations, RP displayed significant improvement in OS when included in the treatment (Z = 4.01; p < 0.001). Adjuvant RT significantly improved DSS (Z = 2.7; p = 0.007). Combination of RT and HT favored better OS in comparison to monotherapy with RT or HT (Z = 3.61; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Improved outcomes in advanced PC were detected for RP plus adjuvant RT vs. RP alone and RT plus adjuvant HT vs. RT alone with comparable survival results between both regimens. RP with adjuvant RT may present the modality of choice when HT is contraindicated.
METHODS: A total of 131 consecutive patients exhibiting NMIBC at primary diagnosis were retrospectively investigated whether they had undergone any HAL-guided TURBT prior to RC. Uni- and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the impact of HAL-TURBT on cancer-specific (CSS) and overall survival (OS). The median follow-up was 38 months (IQR 13-56).
RESULTS: Of the 131 patients, 69 (52.7%) were managed with HAL- and 62 (47.3%) with white light (WL)-TURBT only prior to RC. HAL-TURBT was associated with a higher number of TURBTs prior to RC (p = 0.002) and administration of intravesical chemotherapy (p = 0.043). A trend towards a higher rate of tumor-associated immune cell infiltrates in RC specimens (p = 0.07) and a lower utilization rate of post-operative systemic chemotherapy (p = 0.10) was noted for patients who were treated with HAL-TURBT. The 5-year CSS/OS was 90.9%/74.5% for the HAL-group and 73.8%/55.8% for the WL-group (p = 0.042/0.038). In multivariable analysis, lymph node tumor involvement (p = 0.007), positive surgical margins (p = 0.001) and performance of WL-TURBT only (p = 0.040) were independent predictors for cancer-specific death.
CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggest that the resection of NMIBC under HAL exerts a beneficial impact on outcomes of patients who will need to undergo RC during their course of disease. This finding may be due to improved risk stratification as the resection under HAL may allow more patients to be treated timely and adequately.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted according to PRISMA statement for publications reporting on UR after RC. From initial 802 results, 14 articles including 6169 patients were included finally after exclusion of ineligible studies.
RESULTS: The incidence rate of UR was 4.4% (1.3%-13.7%). It was significantly lower with neobladder diversion (odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.24-0.79, P = 0.006). Muscle invasion (hazard ratio = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.86-1.62, P = 0.31), carcinoma in situ (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI: 0.64-1.47, P = 0.88), prostatic stromal involvement (hazard ratio = 2.26, 95% CI: 0.01-627.75, P = 0.78), and prostatic urethral involvement (hazard ratio = 2.04, 95% CI: 0.20-20.80, P = 0.55) have no significant effect on UR. Men displayed tendency toward higher incidence of UR (odds ratio = 2.21, 95% CI: 0.96-5.06, P = 0.06). Absence of recurrence displayed tendency toward better disease specific survival, yet not significant (hazard ratio = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.08, P = 0.17). These results are limited by the retrospective nature of the included studies.
CONCLUSION: Muscle invasion, carcinoma in situ and prostatic stromal or urethral involvement at time of RC have no significant effect on UR. Orthotopic neobladder is associated with a significant lower risk of UR after RC.