Comparison of intra- and postoperative analgesia and pain perception in robot-assisted vs. open radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: One of the advantages of minimally invasive surgery may be reduced postoperative pain and faster recovery. However, reliable comparisons of robot-assisted (RARP) vs. open radical prostatectomy (ORP) addressing perioperative pain regimen are scarce. METHODS: We identified 420 consecutive treated patients who underwent RARP (n = 254) vs. ORP (n = 166) for clinically localized prostate cancer in 2017. After 1:1 propensity score matching for age, body mass index, D'Amico risk classification and lymph node yield, intra- and postoperative pain medication doses, as well as pain perception expressed by the numeric rating scale were assessed in uni- and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Median age was 64.9 years. Operation time was significantly shorter in ORP patients (155 vs. 175 min in RARP, p < 0.001). Overall, a median of 12.5 vs. 12 g of metamizol was administered in RARP vs. ORP patients (p = 0.2). Additionally, a median of 146.7 vs. 133.9 mg of morphine equivalent was administered in RARP vs. ORP patients (p < 0.001). The mean maximum pain perceived on day 0 was 3.2 vs. 3.6 in RARP vs. ORP patients (p = 0.1). It decreased within the following days, and again, no differences between the two groups were observed. All results were confirmed in multivariable analyses. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing RARP vs. ORP, a small increase in perioperative morphine administration at RARP may be expected. However, when assessing pain perception, no differences were observed between the two groups. Moreover, mean maximum pain perceived was very low, which may reassure patients, who are counselled for radical prostatectomy.

Impact of Adherence to Multidisciplinary Recommendations for Adjuvant Treatment in Radical Prostatectomy Patients With High Risk of Recurrence.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to investigate adherence to recommended adjuvant radiotherapy (aRT) in radical prostatectomy (RP) patients with adverse pathologic features and to analyse the outcome of patients who followed or denied this recommendation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 1140 consecutive RP patients (2006-2015) with non-organ confined (pT3) prostate cancer and either positive surgical margins (R1) and/or lymph node involvement (pN1) and non-detectable postoperative prostate-specific antigen who received multidisciplinary aRT recommendations. Patients were stratified into adherence versus non-adherence to recommendations. Additionally, subgroups within pathologic criteria (pT3R1N0, pT3R0N1, pT3R1N1) were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier, as well as multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to assess biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival, metastasis-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 508 (44.6%) patients were non-adherent. Of those, 273 (53.6%) did not receive any RT, and 235 (46.4%) received salvage RT. At 8 years, BCR-free survival was 57.7 versus 20.1%, metastasis-free survival was 76.5 versus 75.4%, cancer-specific survival was 91.7 versus 87.4%, and overall survival was 80.4 versus 75.8% in adherent versus non-adherent patients, respectively (P < .001). In multivariable Cox regression predicting BCR, metastatic progression, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality, non-adherence to aRT recommendation represented an independent predictor (hazard ratio [HR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1-4.5; HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2; HR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.3; and HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Only about 55% of patients followed our multidisciplinary recommendations. Adherent patients were significantly less likely to experience BCR, metastatic progression, cancer-specific mortality, and overall mortality. Thus, patients with high risk of recurrence may be advised about the possibility of improved oncologic outcomes in case of adherence to aRT recommendations.