TY - JOUR
T1 - Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer
T2 - morbidity and functional outcomes from a large multicenter series of open versus robotic approaches
AU - Gontero, Paolo
AU - Marra, Giancarlo
AU - Alessio, Paolo
AU - Filippini, Claudia
AU - Oderda, Marco
AU - Munoz, Fernando
AU - Linares, Estefania
AU - Sanchez-Salas, Rafael
AU - Challacombe, Ben
AU - Dasgupta, Prokar
AU - Goonewardene, Sanchia
AU - Popert, Rick
AU - Cahill, Declan
AU - Gillatt, David
AU - Persad, Raj
AU - Palou, Juan
AU - Joniau, Steven
AU - Piechaud, Thierry
AU - Morlacco, Alessandro
AU - Vidit, Sharma
AU - Rouprêt, Morgan
AU - De La Taille, Alexandre
AU - Albisinni, Simone
AU - Gandaglia, Giorgio
AU - Mottrie, Alexander
AU - Joshi, Shreyas
AU - Fiscus, Gabriel
AU - Berger, Andre
AU - Aron, Monish
AU - Van Der Poel, Henk
AU - Tilki, Derya
AU - Lawrentschuk, Nathan
AU - Murphy, Declan G.
AU - Leung, Gordon
AU - Davis, John
AU - Karnes, Robert Jeffrey
AU - Collaborators
AU - Calleris, Giorgio
AU - Munegato, Stefania
AU - Palazzetti, Anna
AU - Pisano, Francesca
AU - Ricardi, Umberto
AU - Battaglia, Antonino
AU - van Velthoven, Roland
AU - Cathcart, Paul
AU - Smelzo, Salvatore
AU - Smith, Joseph
AU - Abreu, Andre
AU - Gill, Inderbir S.
PY - 2019/10/1
Y1 - 2019/10/1
N2 - Purpose: Salvage radical prostatectomy has historically yielded a poor functional outcome and a high complication rate. However, recent reports of robotic salvage radical prostatectomy have demonstrated improved results. In this study we assessed salvage radical prostatectomy functional outcomes and complications when comparing robotic and open approaches. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers from 2000 to 2016. The Clavien-Dindo classification was applied to classify complications. Complications and functional outcomes were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analysis. Results: We included 395 salvage radical prostatectomies, of which 186 were open and 209 were robotic. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy yielded lower blood loss and a shorter hospital stay (each p <0.0001). No significant difference emerged in the incidence of major and overall complications (10.1%, p=0.16, and 34.9%, p=0.67), including an overall low risk of rectal injury and fistula (1.58% and 2.02%, respectively). However, anastomotic stricture was more frequent for open salvage radical prostatectomy (16.57% vs 7.66%, p <0.01). Overall 24.6% of patients had had severe incontinence, defined as 3 or more pads per day, for 12 or 6 months. On multivariable analysis robotic salvage radical prostatectomy was an independent predictor of continence preservation (OR 0.411, 95% CI 0.232-0.727, p=0.022). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of a standardized surgical technique. Conclusions: In this contemporary series to our knowledge salvage radical prostatectomy showed a low risk of major complications and better functional outcomes than previously reported. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy may reduce anastomotic stricture, blood loss and hospital stay, and improve continence outcomes.
AB - Purpose: Salvage radical prostatectomy has historically yielded a poor functional outcome and a high complication rate. However, recent reports of robotic salvage radical prostatectomy have demonstrated improved results. In this study we assessed salvage radical prostatectomy functional outcomes and complications when comparing robotic and open approaches. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected data on salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers from 2000 to 2016. The Clavien-Dindo classification was applied to classify complications. Complications and functional outcomes were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analysis. Results: We included 395 salvage radical prostatectomies, of which 186 were open and 209 were robotic. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy yielded lower blood loss and a shorter hospital stay (each p <0.0001). No significant difference emerged in the incidence of major and overall complications (10.1%, p=0.16, and 34.9%, p=0.67), including an overall low risk of rectal injury and fistula (1.58% and 2.02%, respectively). However, anastomotic stricture was more frequent for open salvage radical prostatectomy (16.57% vs 7.66%, p <0.01). Overall 24.6% of patients had had severe incontinence, defined as 3 or more pads per day, for 12 or 6 months. On multivariable analysis robotic salvage radical prostatectomy was an independent predictor of continence preservation (OR 0.411, 95% CI 0.232-0.727, p=0.022). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of a standardized surgical technique. Conclusions: In this contemporary series to our knowledge salvage radical prostatectomy showed a low risk of major complications and better functional outcomes than previously reported. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy may reduce anastomotic stricture, blood loss and hospital stay, and improve continence outcomes.
KW - local
KW - neoplasm recurrence
KW - prostatectomy
KW - prostatic neoplasms
KW - robotic surgical procedures
KW - treatment outcome
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073970013&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/JU.0000000000000327
DO - 10.1097/JU.0000000000000327
M3 - Article
C2 - 31075058
AN - SCOPUS:85073970013
SN - 0022-5347
VL - 202
SP - 725
EP - 731
JO - Journal of Urology
JF - Journal of Urology
IS - 4
ER -