eISSN: 3023-6940
The New Journal of Urology
  • Home
  • Effect of large prostate volume on perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes after robotic radical prostatectomy: A retrospective clinical study

Article Tools

Related Subjects

E-SUBMISSION

Original Research

Effect of large prostate volume on perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes after robotic radical prostatectomy: A retrospective clinical study


1 Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey
2 İstinye University, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey


DOI : 10.33719/yud.2023;18-1-1204096
New J Urol. 2023;18(1):62-69
ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT

Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of large prostate volume on surgical, oncological and functional outcomes in prostate cancer patients who underwent Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
Material and Methods: In this study, patients who underwent RARP due to prostate cancer by a single surgeon were divided into two groups as large prostate volume over 75 cc (Group-1) and prostate volume less than 75 cc (Group-2), and these two groups were compared retrospectively. Patients who were followed up for 12 months were assessed. 
Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, preoperative PSA level, clinical stage distributions, Gleason score, D’Amico risk classification, preoperative potency and continence assessment (p>0.05). The operative time was 169.9 ± 62.5 minutes and 145.6 ± 56.1 minutes in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, and was significantly higher in Group 1 (p= 0.02). Bladder neck reconstruction was performed in 17 (35%) and 2 (3%) patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, and it was statistically significantly higher in Group-1 (p=0.001). After removal of the urethral catheter in Group 1 and Group 2, full continence and potency rates were similar during the 1-year follow-up (p >0.05). Biochemical recurrence rates at 6 months and 1 year were similar in Group 1 and Group 2 (p >0.05).
Conclusion: In prostate cancer patients with large prostate volume, RARP results in longer operative time and bladder neck reconstruction may be required.. However, in operations performed by experienced surgeons, large prostate volume does not have a negative effect on surgical, functional and oncological outcomes.

Keywords: robotic surgical procedures, prostatectomy, prostate, organ size

ABSTRACT

Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of large prostate volume on surgical, oncological and functional outcomes in prostate cancer patients who underwent Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).
Material and Methods: In this study, patients who underwent RARP due to prostate cancer by a single surgeon were divided into two groups as large prostate volume over 75 cc (Group-1) and prostate volume less than 75 cc (Group-2), and these two groups were compared retrospectively. Patients who were followed up for 12 months were assessed. 
Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, preoperative PSA level, clinical stage distributions, Gleason score, D’Amico risk classification, preoperative potency and continence assessment (p>0.05). The operative time was 169.9 ± 62.5 minutes and 145.6 ± 56.1 minutes in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, and was significantly higher in Group 1 (p= 0.02). Bladder neck reconstruction was performed in 17 (35%) and 2 (3%) patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, and it was statistically significantly higher in Group-1 (p=0.001). After removal of the urethral catheter in Group 1 and Group 2, full continence and potency rates were similar during the 1-year follow-up (p >0.05). Biochemical recurrence rates at 6 months and 1 year were similar in Group 1 and Group 2 (p >0.05).
Conclusion: In prostate cancer patients with large prostate volume, RARP results in longer operative time and bladder neck reconstruction may be required.. However, in operations performed by experienced surgeons, large prostate volume does not have a negative effect on surgical, functional and oncological outcomes.

Keywords: robotic surgical procedures, prostatectomy, prostate, organ size

Resources

  • 1.Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
    CROSSREF
  • 2.Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, et al. Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur Urol. 2020;77(1):38-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.005
    CROSSREF
  • 3.Lim KB. Epidemiology of clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia. Asian J Urol. 2017;4(3):148-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2017.06.004
    CROSSREF
  • 4.Foley CL, Bott SR, Thomas K, et al. A large prostate at radical retropubic prostatectomy does not adversely affect cancer control, continence or potency rates. BJU Int. 2003;92(4):370-4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2003.04361.x
    CROSSREF
  • 5.Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol. 2021;79(2):243-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042
    CROSSREF
  • 6.Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, et al. Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7546-54. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.525
    CROSSREF
  • 7.Moschini M, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, et al. Importance of prostate volume in the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2015;22(6):555-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12748
    CROSSREF
  • 8.Skolarus TA, Hedgepeth RC, Zhang Y, et al. Does robotic technology mitigate the challenges of large prostate size? Urology. 2010;76(5):1117-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2010.03.060
    CROSSREF
  • 9.Pettus JA, Masterson T, Sokol A, et al. Prostate size is associated with surgical difficulty but not functional outcome at 1 year after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2009;182(3):949-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.029
    CROSSREF
  • 10.Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;87(4):408-10. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.x
    CROSSREF
  • 11.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(3):431-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.044
    CROSSREF
  • 12.Wolfram M, Bräutigam R, Engl T, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Frankfurt technique. World J Urol. 2003;21:128–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-003-0346-z
    CROSSREF
  • 13.Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, et al. Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res. 1999;11(6):319-26. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900472
    CROSSREF
  • 14.Fahmy O, Alhakamy NA, Ahmed OAA, et al. Impact of Prostate Size on the Outcomes of Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(23):6130. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13236130
    CROSSREF
  • 15.Min SH, Park YH, Lee SB, et al. Impact of prostate size on pathologic outcomes and prognosis after radical prostatectomy. Korean J Urol. 2012;53(7):463-6. https://doi.org/10.4111/kju.2012.53.7.463
    CROSSREF
  • 16.Allaparthi SB, Hoang T, Dhanani NN, et al. Significance of prostate weight on peri and postoperative outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2010;17(5):5383-9.
  • 17.Moschini M, Gandaglia G, Suardi N, et al. Importance of prostate volume in the stratification of patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Int J Urol. 2015;22(6):555-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12748
    CROSSREF
  • 18.Kim MS, Jang WS, Chung DY, et al. Effect of prostate gland weight on the surgical and oncological outcomes of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol. 2019;19(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-018-0434-4
    CROSSREF
  • 19.Hirasawa Y, Ohno Y, Nakashima J, et al. Impact of a preoperatively estimated prostate volume using transrectal ultrasonography on surgical and oncological outcomes in a single surgeon's experience with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(9):3702-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4664-1
    CROSSREF
  • 20.Zorn KC, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, et al. Effect of prostate weight on operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology. 2007;69(2):300-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.021
    CROSSREF
  • 21.Yasui T, Tozawa K, Kurokawa S, et al. Impact of prostate weight on perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with a posterior approach to the seminal vesicle. BMC Urol. 2014;14:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-14-6
    CROSSREF
  • 22.Moris L, Gandaglia G, Vilaseca A, et al. Evaluation of Oncological Outcomes and Data Quality in Studies Assessing Nerve-sparing Versus Non-Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy in Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Focus. 2021:S2405-4569(21)00161-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.05.009
    CROSSREF
  • 23.Galfano A, Panarello D, Secco S, et al. Does prostate volume have an impact on the functional and oncological results of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy? Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018;70(4):408-413. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03069-2
    CROSSREF

Creative Commons

LİMRADIGITAL