Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND The advantages of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) over laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) have rarely been investigated in randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVE To compare RARP and LRP in terms of the functional, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes. The main end point of the study was changes in continence 3 mo after surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From January 2010 to January 2011, 120 patients with organ-confined prostate cancer were enrolled and randomly assigned (using a randomisation plan) to one of two groups based on surgical approach: the RARP group and the LRP group. INTERVENTION All RARP and LRP interventions were performed with the same technique by the same single surgeon. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The demographic, perioperative, and pathologic results, such as the complications and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements, were recorded and compared. Continence was evaluated at the time of catheter removal and 48 h later, and continence and potency were evaluated after 1, 3, 6, and 12 mo. The student t test, Mann-Whitney test, χ(2) test, Pearson χ(2) test, and multiple regression analysis were used for statistics. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The two groups (RARP: n=60; LRP: n=60) were comparable in terms of demographic data. No differences were recorded in terms of perioperative and pathologic results, complication rate, or PSA measurements. The continence rate was higher in the RARP group at every time point: Continence after 3 mo was 80% in the RARP group and 61.6% in the LRP group (p=0.044), and after 1 yr, the continence rate was 95.0% and 83.3%, respectively (p=0.042). Among preoperative potent patients treated with nerve-sparing techniques, the rate of erection recovery was 80.0% and 54.2%, respectively (p=0.020). The limitations included the small number of patients. CONCLUSIONS RARP provided better functional results in terms of the recovery of continence and potency. Further studies are needed to confirm our results.

[1]  J. Joseph,et al.  Robot‐assisted vs pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? , 2005, BJU international.

[2]  M. Menon,et al.  Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. , 2009, European urology.

[3]  Morphological assessment of radical prostatectomy specimens. A protocol with clinical relevance , 2003, Virchows Archiv.

[4]  A W Partin,et al.  Contemporary update of prostate cancer staging nomograms (Partin Tables) for the new millennium. , 2002, Urology.

[5]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. , 2014, European urology.

[6]  Ashutosh Tewari,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional and robotic. , 2005, Urology.

[7]  A. Morabito,et al.  Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[8]  B. Wong Radical retropubic prostatectomy: How I do it , 2006 .

[9]  R. Ghavamian,et al.  Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. , 2009, Urology.

[10]  Ashutosh Tewari,et al.  Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. , 2012, European urology.

[11]  Mottet Nicolas,et al.  前立腺癌に関するEAUガイドライン パートII:進行性再発性および性腺摘除抵抗性前立腺癌の治療 , 2011 .

[12]  E. Crawford,et al.  Radical retropubic prostatectomy. , 1983, The Journal of urology.

[13]  W. Lowrance,et al.  Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[14]  T. H. van der Kwast,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. , 2011, European urology.

[15]  Bob Djavan,et al.  Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: The European and US Experience. , 2010, Reviews in urology.

[16]  M. Picchio,et al.  Re: Nicolas Mottet, Joaquim Bellmunt, Michel Bolla, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part II: Treatment of advanced, relapsing, and castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2011;59:572-83. , 2011, European urology.

[17]  Jens Hansen,et al.  Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. , 2012, European urology.

[18]  Ashutosh Tewari,et al.  Systematic review of methods for reporting combined outcomes after radical prostatectomy and proposal of a novel system: the survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification. , 2012, European urology.

[19]  J. Vroege The sexual health inventory for men (IIEF-5) , 1999, International Journal of Impotence Research.

[20]  N. Demartines,et al.  Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey , 2004, Annals of Surgery.

[21]  M. Peyromaure,et al.  Will robotic surgery become the gold standard for radical prostatectomy? , 2007, European Urology.

[22]  T. Ahlering,et al.  Update on Robotic Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy , 2006, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[23]  H M Sandler,et al.  Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. , 2000, Urology.

[24]  M Bolla,et al.  EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. , 2001, European urology.

[25]  C. Compton,et al.  The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th Edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and the Future of TNM , 2010, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[26]  Paul Krebs,et al.  Erectile function recovery rate after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. , 2009, The journal of sexual medicine.

[27]  Li-Ming Su,et al.  Laparoscopic and robotic assisted radical prostatectomy--critical analysis of the results. , 2006, European urology.

[28]  Filippo Annino,et al.  Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. , 2011, The journal of sexual medicine.