Top

World Journal of Urology

Published in:

01-08-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes—a meta-analysis

Authors: Hai Liao, Xi Duan, Yong Du, Xiaoxi Mou, Tinghui Hu, Tao Cai, Junbo Liu, Shu Cui, Tao Wu

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 8/2020

Abstract

Background

The current study aimed to carry out a comprehensive meta-analysis on the existing evidence to quantify and compare the oncological, surgical and functional outcomes following radical prostatectomy between TURP group and Non-TURP group.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies published in English up to March 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager.

Results

There were 13 studies included in the present study. Our results suggest that TURP group demonstrates a significantly higher positive surgical margin rate, bladder neck reconstruction rate and overall complication rate compared with Non-TURP group (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.09–1.58, P = 0.004, I² = 0%; OR = 14.36, 95% CI 2.93–70.45, P = 0.001, I² = 81%; OR = 2.63, 95% CI 1.87–3.71, P < 0.00001, I² = 0%); whereas TURP group demonstrates a significantly lower nerve sparing rate compared with Non-TURP group (OR = 0.30, 95% CI 0.22–0.43, P < 0.00001, I² = 40%); the operation time, blood loss and 1-year urinary continence rate are same between TURP group and Non-TURP group (MD = 4.25, 95% CI − 0.13 to 8.63, P = 0.06, I² = 34%; MD = 27.29, 95% CI − 10.31 to 64.90, P = 0.15, I² = 39%; OR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.43–1.06, P = 0.09, I² = 0%).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrates that Non-TURP group may have a great advantage over TURP group in terms of positive surgical margin rate, bladder neck reconstruction rate, overall complication rate and sparing rate. The operation time, blood loss and 1-year urinary continence rate are comparable between TURP group and Non-TURP group. Therefore, important information should be given to those patients at risk of prostate cancer that TURP procedure may increase perioperative complications in case of a following radical prostatectomy. In the meantime, our meta-analysis found that each of these four subgroups (RARP, LRP, ORP and RARP/ORP) has its own advantages or disadvantages in every pool results. So when radical prostatectomy is performed on patients with TURP history, the appropriate operation method should be selected as per the conditions of patients, doctors and hospitals.

Available only for authorised users

Mustafa M, Davis JW, Gorgel SN, Pisters L (2017) Robotic or open radical prostatectomy in men with previous transurethral resection of prostate. Urol J 14:2955PubMed

Rassweilera J, Kuntz R, Hofmann R (2006) Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 50:969–980CrossRef

Merrill RM, Wiggins CL (2002) Incidental detection of population-based prostate cancer incidence rates through transurethral resection of the prostate. Urol Oncol 7:213–219CrossRef

Menard J, de la Taille A, Hoznek A et al (2008) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate: surgical and functional outcomes. Urology 72:593–597CrossRef

Elder JS, Gibbons RP, Correa RJ, Brannen GE (1984) Morbidity of radical perineal prostatectomy following transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 132:55–57CrossRef

Zugor V, Labanaris AP, Porres D, Witt JH (2012) Surgical, oncologic, and short-term functional outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol 26:515–519CrossRef

Colombo R, Naspro R, Salonia A et al (2006) Radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: clinical and functional outcomes. J Urol 176:2459–2463CrossRef

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535CrossRef

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560CrossRef

10.

Gupta NP, Singh P, Nayyar R (2011) Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with previous transurethral resection of prostate. BJU Int. 108:1501–1505CrossRef

11.

Hampton L, Nelson RA, Satterthwaite R, Wilson T, Crocitto L (2008) Patients with prior TURP undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy have higher positive surgical margin rates. J Robot Surg 2:213–216CrossRef

12.

Hung C, Yang C, Ou Y (2014) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following transurethral resection of the prostate: perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes. Prostate Int 2:82–89CrossRef

13.

Pompe RS, Leyh-Bannurah S, Preisser F et al (2018) Radical prostatectomy after previous TUR-P: oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes. Urol Oncol Semin Original Investig 36:521–527

14.

Su Y, Katz BF, Sehgal SS et al (2015) Does previous transurethral prostate surgery affect oncologic and continence outcomes after RARP? J Robot Surg. 9:291–297CrossRef

15.

Jaffe J, Stakhovsky O, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Vallancien G, Rozet F (2007) Surgical outcomes for men undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after transurethral resection of the prostate. J Urol 178:483–487CrossRef

16.

Teber D, Cresswell J, Ates M et al (2009) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in clinical T1a and T1b prostate cancer: oncologic and functional outcomes—a matched-pair analysis. Urology 73:577–581CrossRef

17.

Yang Y, Luo Y, Hou G et al (2015) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate in clinical T1a and T1b prostate cancer: a matched-pair analysis. Urol J. 12:2154PubMed

18.

Palisaar JR, Wenske S, Sommerer F, Hinkel A, Noldus J (2009) Open radical retropubic prostatectomy gives favourable surgical and functional outcomes after transurethral resection of the prostate. BJU Int. 104:611–615CrossRef

19.

Yazici S, Inci K, Yuksel S, Bilen CY, Ozen H (2009) Radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: effects on surgical difficulty and pathologic outcomes. Urol 73:856–859CrossRef

20.

Gettman MT, Blute ML (2010) Radical prostatectomy: does surgical technique influence margin control? Urol Oncol. 28:219–225CrossRef

21.

Pastore AL, Palleschi G, Silvestri L et al (2015) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of prostate using a catheter balloon inflated in prostatic urethra: oncological and functional outcomes from a matched pair analysis. Int J Urol 22:1037–1042CrossRef

22.

Bandhauer K, Senn E (1988) Radical retropubic prostatectomy after transurethral prostatic resection. Eur Urol 15:180–181CrossRef

23.

Ramon J, Rossignol G, Leandri P, Gautier JR (1994) Morbidity of radical retropubic prostatectomy following previous prostate resection. J Surg Oncol 55:14–19CrossRef

24.

Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su LM et al (2011) Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int. 107:1956–1962CrossRef

25.

Walsh PC (1998) Patient-reported impotence and incontinence after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 159:308–309CrossRef

26.

Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS et al (2000) Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. JAMA 283:354–360CrossRef

27.

Wolin KY, Luly J, Sutcliffe S, Andriole GL, Kibel AS (2010) Risk of urinary incontinence following prostatectomy: the role of physical activity and obesity. J Urol 183:629–633CrossRef

28.

Cooperberg MR, Odisho AY, Carroll PR (2012) Outcomes for radical prostatectomy: is it the singer, the song, or both? J Clin Oncol 30:476–478CrossRef

29.

Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR et al (2009) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302:1557–1564CrossRef

30.

Talcott JA, Rieker P, Propert KJ et al (1997) Patient-reported impotence and incontinence after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1117–1123CrossRef

31.

Kania P, Wośkowiak P, Salagierski M (2019) Preservation of continence in radical prostatectomy patients: a laparoscopic surgeon’s perspective. Central Eur J Urol 72:32

32.

Rieken M, Herrmann T, Fullhase C (2019) Surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia-resection, vaporization or enucleation? Urol A 58:263–270CrossRef

Title: Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes—a meta-analysis
Authors: Hai Liao
Xi Duan
Yong Du
Xiaoxi Mou
Tinghui Hu
Tao Cai
Junbo Liu
Shu Cui
Tao Wu
Publication date: 01-08-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Prostatectomy
Transurethral Prostate Resection
Prostatectomy
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 8/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02986-2

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes—a meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2020

One-stop biparametric MRI and MRI/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy: can we include the histopathology result and our treatment recommendations in our diagnostic pathway?

The global burden of urinary bladder cancer: an update

Multidimensional outcomes of suburethral synthetic midurethral sling removal

Robotic surgery in infants and children: an argument for smaller and fewer incisions

Prevalence, assessment and surgical correction of penile curvature in hypospadias patients treated at one European Referral Center: description of the technique and surgical outcomes

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