HSR&D Citation Abstract
Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title
Gontero P, Marra G, Alessio P, Filippini C, Oderda M, Munoz F, Linares E, Sanchez-Salas R, Challacombe B, Dasgupta P, Goonewardene S, Popert R, Cahill D, Gillatt D, Persad R, Palou J, Joniau S, Piechaud T, Morlacco A, Vidit S, Rouprêt M, De La Taille A, Albisinni S, Gandaglia G, Mottrie A, Joshi S, Fiscus G, Berger A, Aron M, Van Der Poel H, Tilki D, Lawrentschuk N, Murphy DG, Leung G, Davis J, Karnes RJ, Collaborators. Salvage Radical Prostatectomy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Morbidity and Functional Outcomes from a Large Multicenter Series of Open versus Robotic Approaches. The Journal of urology. 2019 Oct 1; 202(4):725-731.
Salvage radical prostatectomy has historically yielded a poor functional outcome and a high complication rate. However, recent reports of robotic salvage radical prostatectomy have demonstrated improved results. In this study we assessed salvage radical prostatectomy functional outcomes and complications when comparing robotic and open approaches.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
We retrospectively collected data on salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after local nonsurgical treatment at 18 tertiary referral centers from 2000 to 2016. The Clavien-Dindo classification was applied to classify complications. Complications and functional outcomes were evaluated by univariable and multivariable analysis.
We included 395 salvage radical prostatectomies, of which 186 were open and 209 were robotic. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy yielded lower blood loss and a shorter hospital stay (each p < 0.0001). No significant difference emerged in the incidence of major and overall complications (10.1%, p = 0.16, and 34.9%, p = 0.67), including an overall low risk of rectal injury and fistula (1.58% and 2.02%, respectively). However, anastomotic stricture was more frequent for open salvage radical prostatectomy (16.57% vs 7.66%, p < 0.01). Overall 24.6% of patients had had severe incontinence, defined as 3 or more pads per day, for 12 or 6 months. On multivariable analysis robotic salvage radical prostatectomy was an independent predictor of continence preservation (OR 0.411, 95% CI 0.232-0.727, p = 0.022). Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and the absence of a standardized surgical technique.
In this contemporary series to our knowledge salvage radical prostatectomy showed a low risk of major complications and better functional outcomes than previously reported. Robotic salvage radical prostatectomy may reduce anastomotic stricture, blood loss and hospital stay, and improve continence outcomes.