Patient reported outcome measures concerning urinary incontinence after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: development and validation of an online prediction model using clinical parameters, lower urinary tract symptoms and surgical experience.

The prediction of post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) depends on multiple clinical, anatomical and surgical factors. There are only few risk formulas, tables or nomograms predicting PPI that may assist clinicians and their patients in adequate risk counseling on postoperative side-effects. Prospective data collection of 1814 patients who underwent RARP between 2009 and 2017 was done. Pre-operative parameters were age, body mass index (BMI), prostate volume, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, severity of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS), type of planned nerve-sparing surgery and surgical experience. The continence status was reported using Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) using the validated pad-use questionnaire EPIC26. Continence was defined as either the use of zero pads or one safety pad. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of PPI within one year after RARP. An online prediction tool was developed and validated. The median follow-up was 36 months (range 12-108). The response rate was high at 85.2%. A total of 85% (1537/1814) of patients was continent on follow-up. One-year continence rate was 80.1% (95% CI 78.3-81.9%) (1453/1814) and increased to 87.4% (95% CI 85.4-89.4%) after 5 years. On multivariable analysis, severity of LUTS (OR = 0.56 p = 0.004), higher age (OR = 0.73 p = 0.049), extend of nerve-sparing surgery (OR = 0.60 p = 0.001) and surgeon experience (OR = 1.48 p = 0.025) were significant independent predictors for PPI. The online prediction model performed well in predicting continence status with poor discrimination and good calibration. An intuitive online tool was developed to predict PPI after RARP that may assist clinicians and their patients in counseling of treatment.

Partial versus complete prostatectomy specimen sampling: prospective non-inferiority study for pT3a tumours and surgical margin involvement.

AIMS: The importance of additional information gained by complete versus partial sampling or prostatectomy specimens is uncertain. There is sparse data on the value of complete versus partial sampling and numbers of inclusions in studies are small and retrospective. We present the results of a prospective non-inferiority study to examine if partial sampling is inferior to complete sampling in terms of pathology outcomes and clinical relevance. METHODS: 564 robot-assisted prostatectomy (RARP) specimens with prospective registration and analysis were collected over a 2-year period. All patients underwent RARP between January 2014 and February 2016 in our hospital after a diagnosis of clinically localised prostate cancer. For each patient, tumour stage and surgical margin status was recorded after partial and after complete sampling. Upstaging from pT2 to pT3a and upgrading from a negative-to-positive surgical margin was analysed. RESULTS: In 12 of 564 patients (2.1%), complete sampling yielded new information. In eight patients (1.4%), the surgical margin converted to positive after complete sampling. Upstaging from initial pT2 tumour in partial sampling to pT3a tumour after complete sampling was documented in five patients (0.9%). In the follow-up period (mean 35 months), a biochemical recurrence occurred in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: Complete sampling provides new information in only 2.1% of cases, compared with partial sampling. We conclude that the additional information gained by complete sampling in terms of stage and surgical margin detection is statistically insignificant compared with partial sampling. Furthermore, partial sampling compared with complete sampling does not change postoperative clinical management.

[Robotic surgery: marking time?]. / Robotchirurgie: pas op de plaats?

Robot-assisted surgery provides the next step in surgical evolution. Where laparoscopic surgery shortened both hospital stay and recovery, it often prolonged the surgical procedure. Novel laparoscopic instruments such as robotic systems improve visibility and patient outcome. Recent randomized studies show improved functional patient outcome after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Introduction of image-guided surgical technologies is aided by robotic systems. Outside medicine, randomized controlled studies in technological improvements are non-existent. A careful monitoring of study results is mandatory for the introduction of novel technologies in the field of medicine.