Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

PURPOSE: This study is a systematic analysis of the evidence regarding oncological, perioperative and postoperative outcomes and the cost of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). METHODS: Summary data was abstracted from 104 original research articles representing 227,400 patients. PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were reviewed in December 2016. A total of 104 publications were selected for inclusion. The primary outcomes were positive surgical margin (PSM) and major complication rate according to Clavien classifications. Secondary outcomes were operative time, length of hospital stay, estimated blood loss, transfusions, conversions, rate of post-operative erectile dysfunction and incontinence and total cost of procedure. RESULTS: ORP had a significantly higher rate than RALP for PSM (OR: 1.18; 95% CI 1.05-1.32; p = 0.004), but the rate of PSM was not significantly different between ORP versus LRP (OR: 1.37; 95% CI 0.88-2.14; p = 0.17) and RALP versus LRP (OR: 0.83; 95% CI 0.40-1.72; p = 0.62). The major Clavien complication rate was significantly different between ORP and RALP (OR: 2.14; 95% CI 1.24-3.68; p = 0.006). Estimated blood loss, transfusions and length of hospital stay were low for RALP, moderate for LRP and high for ORP. The rate of erectile dysfunction (OR: 2.58; 95% CI 1.77-3.75; p < 0.001) and incontinence (OR: 3.57; 95% CI 2.28-5.58; p < 0.001) were significantly lower after RALP than LRP and equivalent for other comparisons. Total cost was highest for RALP, followed by LRP and ORP. CONCLUSIONS: For PSM and peri- and post-operative complications, RALP showed better results than ORP and LRP. In the context of the biases between the studies, one should interpret the results with caution.

Three-dimensional Technology Facilitates Surgical Performance of Novice Laparoscopy Surgeons: A Quantitative Assessment on a Porcine Kidney Model.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the use of 3-dimensional (3D) imaging translates into a better surgical performance of naïve urologic laparoscopic surgeons during pyeloplasty (PY) and partial nephrectomy (PN) procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen surgeons without any previous laparoscopic experience were randomly assigned to perform PY and PN in a porcine model using initially 2-dimensional (2D) and 3D laparoscopy. A surgical performance score was rated by an "expert" tutor through a modified 5-item global rating scale contemplating operative field view, bimanual dexterity, efficiency, tissue handling, and autonomy. Overall surgical time, complications, subjective perception of participating surgeons, and inconveniences related to the 3D vision were recorded. RESULTS: No difference in terms if operative time was found between 2D or 3D laparoscopy for both the PY (P = .51) and the PN (P = .28) procedures. A better rate in terms of surgical performance score was noted by the tutors when the study participants were using 3D vs 2D, for both PY (3.6 [0.8] vs 3.0 [0.4]; P = .034) and PN (3.6 [0.51] vs 3.15 [0.63]; P = .001). No complications occurred in any of the procedures. Most (77.2%) of the participating naïve laparoscopic surgeons had the perception that 3D laparoscopy was overall easier than 2D. Headache (18.1%), nausea (18.1%), and visual disturbance (18.1%) were the most common issues reported by the surgeons during 3D procedures. CONCLUSION: Despite the absence of translation in a shorter operative time, the use of 3D technology seems to facilitate the surgical performance of naïve surgeons during laparoscopic kidney procedures on a porcine model.

Application of external microwave thermotherapy in urology: past, present, and future.

The excellent clinical results of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) gave to TUMT the leading position among the microwave thermotherapy modalities available for the treatment of different urologic conditions. Research in TUMT has focused on operating software, temperature monitoring, intraprostatic heat distribution, cell-kill calculations, and correlations with clinical variables. Randomized comparisons of TUMT with other established therapies for BPH, including transurethral resection, have facilitated the evaluation of the clinical outcome, durability, morbidity, and costs of the treatment. The applications of microwave thermotherapy in other urologic diseases are also presented in this review.

Transurethral microwave thermotherapy: the gold standard for minimally invasive therapies for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia?

From all available minimally invasive methods for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) has gained a firm position as the most attractive option. Recent research has produced innovations in high-energy TUMT, including new treatment protocols, refined selection criteria, and monitoring of intraprostatic temperature. Furthermore, long-term results from randomized studies comparing TUMT with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or medical treatment are now available. All these data indicate that more durable clinical outcomes and less morbidity can be achieved with TUMT, strengthening its position as a standard treatment for BPH. This paper describes the status of TUMT in the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms related to BPH, focusing on variations in the outcomes with different devices, the durability of treatment outcomes, morbidity, selection criteria, and cost. The relation of TUMT to medical management and TURP also is addressed.