Top

Published in:

01-11-2013

Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon

Authors: Anastasios D. Asimakopoulos, Roberto Miano, Nicola Di Lorenzo, Enrico Spera, Giuseppe Vespasiani, Camille Mugnier

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 11/2013

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to compare the pentafecta rates between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) and to identify prognostic factors predicting the pentafecta for each technique.

Methods

This prospective comparative study enrolled 248 consecutive male patients 70 years of age or younger with clinically localized prostate cancer [PCa: age ≤70 years, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason score ≤7] who were fully continent, potent, and candidates for bilateral nerve-sparing (BNS) LRP or RALP. The pentafecta rates between LRP and RALP were compared. A logistic regression model was created to evaluate independent factors for achieving pentafecta.

Results

In the final analysis, 91 LRP and 136 RALP patients were evaluated. The median follow-up period was 21 months for the 91 LRP patients and 18 months for the 136 RALP patients (p = 0.07). Of the 227 patients, 87 reached pentafecta [25 LRP patients (27.5 %) vs 62 RALP patients (45.6 %), p = 0.006]. Of the 140 patients who failed pentafecta, 90 (64.3 %) missed a single parameter, and the difference between the groups was significant (80 % LRP vs 53.3 % RALP, p = 0.007). Lower age, lower pathologic stage, and RALP are significantly associated with pentafecta as independent factors. For the pT3 disease, the two techniques did not differ significantly.

Conclusions

Patients submitted to BNS RP have low possibilities of achieving pentafecta. Use of the robotic platform by a single surgeon significantly enhances the possibility of achieving pentafecta independently of age and pathologic stage. Potency was the most difficult outcome to reach after surgery, and it was the main factor leading to pentafecta failure. LRP and RALP provide equivalent pentafecta rates for the pT3 disease and similar “tetrafecta” outcomes when potency recovery is not included among the postoperative expectations of the patient.

Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast T, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, European Association of Urology (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer: part 1. screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localized disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71PubMedCrossRef

Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2005) Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 66(5 suppl):83–94PubMedCrossRef

Saranchuk JW, Kattan MW, Elkin E, Touijer AK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2005) Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 23:4146–4151PubMedCrossRef

Salomon L, Saint F, Anastasiadis AG, Sebe P, Chopin D, Abbou C–C (2003) Combined reporting of cancer control and functional results of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 44:656–660PubMedCrossRef

Ficarra V, Sooriakumaran P, Novara G, Schatloff O, Briganti A, Van der Poel H, Montorsi F, Patel V, Tewari A, Mottrie A (2012) Systematic review of methods for reporting combined outcomes after radical prostatectomy and proposal of a novel system: the survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification. Eur Urol 61:541–548PubMedCrossRef

Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF et al (2011) Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59:702–707PubMedCrossRef

Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Kattan MW (2008) Predicting an optimal outcome after radical prostatectomy: the trifecta nomogram. J Urol 179:2207–2210PubMedCrossRef

Asimakopoulos AD, Montes VEC, Gaston R (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with intrafascial dissection of the neurovascular bundles and preservation of the pubovesical complex: a step-by-step description of the technique. J Endourol 26:1578–1585. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0405 Epub 16 October 2012PubMedCrossRef

Asimakopoulos AD, Annino F, D’Orazio A, Pereira CF, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL, Piechaud T, Gaston R (2010) Complete periprostatic anatomy preservation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP): the new pubovesical complex-sparing technique. Eur Urol 58:407–417. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.032 Epub 18 May 2010PubMedCrossRef

10.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6, 336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213PubMedCrossRef

11.

Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D’Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus SR, Moul JW, Tangen C, Thrasher JB, Thompson I (2007) Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 177:540–545PubMedCrossRef

12.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel VR, Stolzenburg JU, Van der Poel H, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Mottrie A (2012) Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045 PubMedCrossRef

13.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Mottrie A, Patel VR, Van der Poel H, Rosen RC, Tewari AK, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Montorsi F (2012) Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.046 PubMedCrossRef

14.

Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P (2012) Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.029 PubMedCrossRef

15.

Porpiglia F, Morra I, Chiarissi ML, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S, Ragni F, Poggio M, Fiori C (2013) Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63:606–614PubMedCrossRef

16.

Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C (2011) Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 8:1503–1512PubMedCrossRef

17.

Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, Salomon L (2012) Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049

18.

Park B, Kim W, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Choi HY, Seo SI (2013) Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of pure versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon. Scand J Urol 47:10–18. doi:10.3109/00365599.2012.696137 PubMedCrossRef

19.

Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, Albala DM, Price MM, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN, Tewari AK, Moul JW (2008) Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54:785–793. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.063 Epub 23 June 2008PubMedCrossRef

20.

Pierorazio PM, Spencer BA, McCann TR, McKiernan JM, Benson MC (2007) Preoperative risk stratification predicts likelihood of concurrent PSA-free survival, continence, and potency (the trifecta analysis) after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 70:717–722PubMedCrossRef

21.

Xylinas E, Durad X, Ploussard G et al (2013) Evaluation of combined oncologic and functional outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: trifecta rate of achieving continence, potency, and cancer control. Urol Oncol 31:99–103. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.10.012 PubMedCrossRef

Title: Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon
Authors: Anastasios D. Asimakopoulos
Roberto Miano
Nicola Di Lorenzo
Enrico Spera
Giuseppe Vespasiani
Camille Mugnier
Publication date: 01-11-2013
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 11/2013
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3046-9

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2013

Embryonic NOTES thoracic sympathectomy for palmar hyperhidrosis: results of a novel technique and comparison with the conventional VATS procedure

Retrospective study of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) for surgical resection of esophageal leiomyoma

Laparoscopic resection of paraaortic or paracaval lesions: feasibility and outcome

Feasibility of remote administration of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) skills test

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a single-center experience

Long-term follow-up evaluation of revisional gastric bypass after failed adjustable gastric banding