Retzius Koruyucu Robot Yardımlı Radikal Prostatektomi ile Konvansiyonel Robot Yardımlı Radikal Prostatektominin Cerrahi Sınır Pozitifliği Açısından Karşılaştırılması

Year 2024, Volume: 16 Issue: 3, 75 - 83, 29.09.2024

Ali Kaan Yıldız , Arif Bedirhan Bayraktar , Demirhan Örsan Demir , Turgay Kaçan , Yusuf Gökkurt , Buğra Bilge Keseroğlu , Tolga Karakan

https://doi.org/10.54233/endourolbull-1485755

Abstract

Amaç: Prostat kanserinin cerrahi tedavisinde Retzius koruyucu robot yardımlı radikal prostatektomi (RK–RYRP) ile konvansiyonel robot yardımlı radikal prostatektomi (K-RYRP)’yi cerrahi sınır pozitifliği açısından karşılaştırmayı amaçladık.
Materyal ve Metod: Ocak 2022 – Eylül 2023 tarihleri arasında lokalize prostat kanseri tanısı konmuş, RK-RYRP ve K-RYRP yapılan 57 hastanın erken dönem onkolojik sonuçları (ISUP derecesi, T evresi, mesane boynu invazyonu, ektrakapsüler yayılım, seminal vezikül invazyonu, lenf nodu invazyonu ve cerrahi sınır pozitifliği) incelendi.
Bulgular: RK-RYRP grubundaki hastalar, K-RYRP grubundaki hastalar ile karşılaştırıldığında yaş, VKİ, preoperatif PSA, prostat hacmi ve preoperatif ISUP dereceleri açısından anlamlı bir farklılık izlenmedi (hepsi p>0.05). Ortalama operasyon süresi açısından her iki grup arasında fark görülmedi (p=0,06).
Cerrahi sınır pozitifliği; RK-RYRP grubundaki hastaların %34,6’sında, K-RYRP grubundaki hastaların %25,8’inde saptandı ve her iki grupta anlamlı farklılık saptanmadı (p=0,4). Cerrahi spesmenin ISUP dereceleri ve T evreleri benzerdi (hepsi p>0,05). Lenf nodu invazyonu, ekstrakapsüler yayılım, seminal vezikül invazyonu ve mesane boynu invazyonu açısından da her iki grupta istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark görülmedi (hepsi p>0,05).
Sonuç: Retzius koruyucu robot yardımlı laparoskopik radikal prostatektomi, prostat kanseri cerrahisi için erken onkolojik sonuçlar açısından konvansiyonel yöntemle karşılaştırıldığında uygulanabilir bir yöntemdir. Ancak, uzun dönem onkolojik sonuçlar (özellikle biyokimyasal rekürrens açısından) için daha fazla veriye ihtiyaç vardır.

Keywords

prostatektomi, retzius koruyucu, robotik, cerrahi, konvansiyonel

Comparison of Retzius Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Conventional Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in Terms of Surgical Margin Positivity

Abstract

Objective: To compare Retzius-sparing robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) and conventional robot assisted radical prostatectomy (C-RARP) in the surgical treatment of prostate cancer in terms of surgical margin positivity.
Methods: Early oncological results (ISUP grade, T stage, bladder neck invasion, extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node invasion and positive surgical margin) oh 57 patients who were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer and underwent RS-RARP and C-RARP between January 2022 and September 2023 were analysed.
Results: There was no significant difference in age, BMI, preoperative PSA, prostate volume and preoperative ISUP grades when the RS-RARP group was compared with the C-RARP group (p>0,05, all). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of mean operation time (p=0,06).
Surgical margin positivity was found in 34.6% of the patients in the RS-RARP group and in 25.8% of the patients in the C-RARP group and no significant difference was found in both groups (p = 0,4). ISUP grades and T stages of the surgical specimen were similar (p>0,05, all). There was no statistically significant difference in lymph node invasion, extracapsular extention, seminal vesicle invasion and bladder neck invasion (p>0,05, all).
Conclusion: Retzius sparing robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a feasible method for prostate cancer surgery compared to the conventional method in terms of early oncological results. However, more data are needed for long-term oncological outcomes (especially in terms of biochemical recurrence).

Keywords

prostatectomy, retzius sparing, robotic, surgery, conventional

References

• 1. Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, Bray F, Jemal A. 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
• 2. Zahid A, Ayyan M, Farooq M, Cheema HA, Shahid A, et al. Robotic surgery in comparison to the open and laparoscopic approaches in the field of urology: a systematic review. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(1):11-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01416-7
• 3. Bianco FJ, Jr., Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology. 2005;66(5 Suppl):83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.116
• 4. Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, et al. Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2008;179(5 Suppl):S47-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.137
• 5. Galfano A, Ascione A, Grimaldi S, Petralia G, Strada E, et al. A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):457-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.008
• 6. Chung DY, Jung HD, Kim DK, Lee MH, Lee SW, et al. Outcomes of Retzius-sparing versus conventional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A KSER update series systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2022;17(5):e0268182. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268182
• 7. Barayan GA, Majdalany SE, Butaney M, Dalela D, Peabody J, et al. Intermediate-Term Oncologic Outcome Assessment for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Comparing Retzius-Sparing with Standard Approach in a Randomized Control Cohort. J Endourol. 2024;38(6):559-63. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2023.0514
• 8. Dall CP, Mason JB, Choudhury E, Mora-Garijo B, Egan J, et al. Long-term outcomes of pelvic-fascia sparing roboticassisted radical prostatectomy versus standard technique: Superior urinary function and quality of life without compromising oncologic efficacy in a single-surgeon series. Urol Oncol. 2024;42(3):67.e17-67.e24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2023.11.020
• 9. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244-52. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
• 10. Hamzaoui D, Montagne S, Granger B, Allera A, Ezziane M, et al. Prostate volume prediction on MRI: tools, accuracy and variability. Eur Radiol. 2022;32(7):4931-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-022-08554-4 11. Cimino S, Reale G, Castelli T, Favilla V, Giardina R, et al. Comparison between Briganti, Partin and MSKCC toolsin predicting positive lymph nodes in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Urol. 2017;51(5):345-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2017.1332680
• 12. Peña González JA, Pascual Queralt M, Salvador Bayarri JT, Rosales Bordes A, Palou Redorta J, et al. Evolution of open versus laparoscopic/robotic surgery: 10 years of changes in urology. Actas Urol Esp. 2010;34(3):223-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2173-5786(10)70053-6
• 13. Çelik S, Aslan G, Sözen S, Özen H, Akdoğan B, et al. Factors Affecting Surgical Margin Positivity after Radical Prostatectomy in the Turkish Population: A Multicenter Study of the Urooncology Association. Urol Int. 2020;104(9-10):724-30. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507268
• 14. Ploussard G, Agamy MA, Alenda O, Allory Y, Mouracade P, et al. Impact of positive surgical margins on prostatespecific antigen failure after radical prostatectomy in adjuvant treatment-naïve patients. BJU Int. 2011;107(11):1748-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09728.x
• 15. Pfitzenmaier J, Pahernik S, Tremmel T, Haferkamp A, Buse S, et al. Positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: do they have an impact on biochemical or clinical progression? BJU Int. 2008;102(10):1413-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07791.x
• 16. Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F, Strada E, Petralia G, et al. Beyond the Learning Curve of the Retzius-sparing Approach for Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Oncologic and Functional Results of the First 200 Patients with ≥1 Year of Follow-up. European Urology. 2013;64(6):974-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.046
• 17. Sayyid RK, Sherwood D, Simpson WG, Terris MK, Klaassen Z, et al. Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: racial considerations for 250 consecutive cases. Journal of Robotic Surgery. 2021;15(2):221-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-020-01096-1
• 18. Asimakopoulos AD, Topazio L, De Angelis M, Agrò EF, Pastore AL, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robotassisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc. 2019;33(7):2187-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6499-z
• 19. Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin T-Y, Han WK, Chung BH, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU International. 2014;114(2):236-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12705
• 20. Checcucci E, Veccia A, Fiori C, Amparore D, Manfredi M, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: a systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes. BJU Int. 2020;125(1):8-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14887
• 21. Dalela D, Jeong W, Prasad MA, Sood A, Abdollah F, et al. A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial Examining the Impact of the Retzius-sparing Approach on Early Urinary Continence Recovery After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2017;72(5):677-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.029