Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this study is to evaluate the surgical, oncological and short-term functional outcomes in patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≥100 g versus patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≤50 g undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Patients and Methods: The records of 4,000 men who underwent RARP from February 2006 to April 2012 were reviewed retrospectively. A total of 185 men had a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≥100 g (group A). A matched pairs analysis was performed using our database to identify men with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≤50 g but with equivalent clinicopathologic characteristics to serve as the control group (group B). Results: Our results indicated that although the intraoperative results were more than satisfying in patients with large glands, there is a significant increase in blood loss, operative time needed, increased need for bladder neck reconstruction as well as an increase in intraoperative complications. Nevertheless, patients with large glands exhibit less aggressive tumors, less positive surgical margins and a lower incidence of biochemical recurrence. Regarding functional outcomes, patients with larger glands had no difference regarding continence rates when compared to patients with smaller glands but exhibited significantly lower potency rates. Conclusions: Although RARP in patients with a pathologic prostate specimen weight ≥100 g is technically challenging, in experienced hands it can be considered a safe procedure with excellent surgical, oncological and functional outcomes. Nevertheless, this conclusion is limited, in that it is from a single institution with a large case volume and may not be reflective of outcomes at centers with smaller volumes and less experience.
Journal Section:
Editor's choice
References
1.
Fowler FJ Jr, McNaughton CM, Albertsen PC, Zietman A, Elliott DB, Barry MJ: Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 2000;283:3217–3222.
[PubMed]
2.
Salem N, Simonian-Sauve M, Rosello R, Alzieu C, Gravis G, Maraninchi D, Bladou F: Predictive factors of acute urinary morbidity after iodine-125 brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer: a phase 2 study. Radiother Oncol 2003;66:159–165.
[PubMed]
3.
Ash D, Flynn A, Battermann J, de RT, Lavagnini P, Blank L: ESTRO/EAU/EORTC recommendations on permanent seed implantation for localized prostate cancer. Radiother Oncol 2000;57:315–321.
[PubMed]
4.
Hsu EI, Hong EK, Lepor H: Influence of body weight and prostate volume on intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 2003;61:601–606.
[PubMed]
5.
Hollenbeck BK, Dunn RL, Wei JT, Montie JE, Sanda MG: Determinants of long-term sexual health outcome after radical prostatectomy measured by a validated instrument. J Urol 2003;169:1453–1457.
[PubMed]
6.
Pettus JA, Masterson T, Sokol A, Cronin AM, Savage C, Sandhu JS, Mulhall JP, Scardino PT, Rabbani F: Prostate size is associated with surgical difficulty but not functional outcome at 1 year after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009;182:949–955.
[PubMed]
7.
Konety BR, Sadetsky N, Carroll PR, CaPSURE Investigators: Recovery of urinary continence following radical prostatectomy: the impact of prostate volume – analysis of data from the CaPSURE Database. J Urol 2007;177:1425–1426.
8.
Freedland SJ, Isaacs WB, Platz EA, Terris MK, Aronson WJ, Amling CL, Presti JC Jr, Kane CJ: Prostate size and risk of high-grade, advanced prostate cancer and biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy: a search database study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7546–7554.
[PubMed]
9.
Hong SK, Yu JH, Han BK, Chang IH, Jeong SJ, Byun SS, Lee HJ, Choe G, Lee SE: Association of prostate size and tumor grade in Korean men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Urology 2007;70:91–95.
[PubMed]
10.
Smith JA Jr, Chan RC, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R, Cookson MS: A comparison of the incidence and location of positive surgical margins in robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and open retropubic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2007;178:2385–2389.
[PubMed]
11.
Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, Leung R, Rao S, El-Hakim A, Tewari A: Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 2008;72:15–23.
[PubMed]
12.
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional and robotic. Urology 2005;66:101–104.
[PubMed]
13.
Parsons JK, Bennett JL: Outcomes of retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 2008;72:412–416.
[PubMed]
14.
Witt JH, Zugor V, Wagner C, Schutte A, Labanaris AP: Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy, Laparoscopy – An Interdisciplinary Approach; in Meinhold-Heerlein I (ed): InTech, 2011. Available from: http://www. intechopen.com/articles/show/title/robot-assisted-radical-prostatectomy.
15.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205–213.
[PubMed]
16.
Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Peña BM: 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;11:319–326.
[PubMed]
17.
Feneley MR, Landis P, Simon I, Metter EJ, Morrell CH, Carter HB, Walsh PC: Today men with prostate cancer have larger prostates. Urology 2000;56:839–842.
[PubMed]
18.
Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G: Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002;60:864–868.
[PubMed]
19.
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani KK, Fumo M, Bhandari M, Peabody JO: Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 2007;51:648–657.
[PubMed]
20.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van Poppel H: Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009;55:1037–1063.
[PubMed]
21.
Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K: Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int 2007;99:1109–1112.
[PubMed]
22.
Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY, Yoshida JS, Crocitto LE, Kawachi MH, Wilson TG: The impact of prostate gland weight in robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008;180:928–932.
[PubMed]
23.
Boczko J, Erturk E, Golijanin D, Madeb R, Patel H, Joseph JV: Impact of prostate size in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2007;21:184–188.
[PubMed]
24.
Skolarus TA, Hedgepeth RC, Zhang Y, Weizer AZ, Montgomery JS, Miller DC, Wood DP Jr, Hollenbeck BK: Does robotic technology mitigate the challenges of large prostate size? Urology 2010;76:1117–1121.
[PubMed]
25.
Chan RC, Barocas DA, Chang SS, Herrell SD, Clark PE, Baumgartner R, Smith JA, Cookson MS: Effect of a large prostate gland on open and robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2008;101:1140–1144.
[PubMed]
26.
Zorn K, Orvieto M, Mikhail A, et al: Effect of prostate weight on operative and postoperative outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 2007;69:300–305.
[PubMed]
27.
Levinson AW, Bagga HS, Pavlovich CP, Mettee LZ, Ward NT, Link RE, Su LM: The impact of prostate size on urinary quality of life indexes following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2008;179:1818–1822.
[PubMed]
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2012
You do not currently have access to this content.
