Comparison of urethral-sparing versus non urethral-sparing techniques of robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sexual, functional, and surgical outcomes

Noka Yogahutama; Raden Danarto

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20244128

Authors

Noka Yogahutama An-Nur Surgical Hospital, Sleman, Daerah Istimewa, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Raden Danarto Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20244128

Keywords:

Prostatectomy, Benign prostate hyperplasia, Benign prostatic enlargement

Abstract

Simple prostatectomy (SP) with urethral preservation offers various benefits. Recent advancements in technology have made urethral-sparing robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (US-RASP) more feasible. This systematic review compares the efficacy of US-RASP to non-urethral-sparing robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (Non-US-RASP). A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines up to September 2024. Meta-analyses of sexual, functional, and surgical outcomes were performed using Review Manager version 5.4. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Six observational studies involving 615 patients were included (332 US-RASP versus 283 non-US-RASP). US-RASP significantly improved sexual outcomes, with higher 6-month ejaculatory preservation (OR 31.77, 95% CI: 13.28 to 76.02, p<0.001) and a higher 12-month MSHQ-EjD SF score (MD 6.38, 95% CI: 5.90 to 6.85, p<0.001). Surgical outcomes favored US-RASP with shorter catheterization time (MD -2.67, 95% CI: -4.63 to -0.71, p=0.008) and reduced length of stay (MD -1.39, 95% CI: -2.51 to -0.28, p=0.01). However, US-RASP was associated with a higher 12-month PVR score (MD 14.00, 95% CI: 12.33 to 15.68, p<0.001). This meta-analysis suggests that US-RASP is an effective alternative to Non-US-RASP, demonstrating better sexual and surgical outcomes despite a higher PVR. However, these findings should be confirmed with a well-designed larger randomized trial.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Madersbacher S, Sampson N, Culig Z. Pathophysiology of benign prostatic hyperplasia and benign prostatic enlargement: A mini-review. Gerontology. 2019;65(5):458-64.

Foo KT. Pathophysiology of clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia. Asian J Urol. 2017;4(3):152-7.

Cornu JN, Gacci M, Hashim H, Herrmann TRW, Malde S, Netsch C, et al. EAU Guidelines on Non-Neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS). Arnhem, the Netherlands: European Association of Urology. 2024;8-59.

Lerner LB, McVary KT, Barry MJ, Bixler BR, Dahm P, Das AK, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia: AUA guideline part II—surgical evaluation and treatment. J Urol. 2021;206(4):818-26.

Suer E, Gokce I, Yaman O, Anafarta K, Göğüş O. Open prostatectomy is still a valid option for large prostates: A high-volume, single-center experience. Urology. 2008;72(1):90-4.

Varkarakis I, Kyriakakis Z, Delis A, Protogerou V, Deliveliotis C. Long-term results of open transvesical prostatectomy from a contemporary series of patients. Urology. 2004;64(2):306-10.

Haibin W, Lin Q, Junxiu W, Heng W, Qi Z, Yanpeng W, et al. Transurethral laser versus open simple prostatectomy for large volume prostates: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Lasers Med Sci. 2020;36(6):1191-200.

Millin T. Retropubic prostatectomy a new extravesical technique; report of 20 cases. Lancet. 1945;246(6379):693-6.

Freyer PJ. A new method of performing perineal prostatectomy. BMJ. 1900;1(2047):698-9.

Dixon AR, Lord PH, Madigan MR. The madigan prostatectomy. J Urol. 1990;144(6):1401-3.

Anceschi U, Amparore D, Prata F, Tedesco F, Cacciatore L, Checcucci E, et al. Predictors of mid-term functional outcomes for robot-assisted madigan simple prostatectomy: Results of a multicentric series according to the BPH-6 achievement. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2023;75(5):607-15.

Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O, Garcia AL, Banda E, Miranda M, et al. Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol. 2008;179(2):513-5.

Pandolfo SD, Del Giudice F, Chung BI, Manfredi C, De Sio M, Damiano R, et al. Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy versus other treatment modalities for large benign prostatic hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of over 6500 cases. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2022;26(3):495-510.

Simone G, Misuraca L, Anceschi U, Minisola F, Ferriero M, Guaglianone S, et al. Urethra and ejaculation preserving robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: Near-infrared fluorescence imaging-guided madigan technique. Eur Urol. 2019;75(3):492-7.

Wang P, Xia D, Ye S, Kong D, Qin J, Jing T, et al. Robotic-assisted urethra-sparing simple prostatectomy via an extraperitoneal approach. Urology. 2018;119:85-90.

Bove AM, Anceschi U, Ferriero M, Mastroianni R, Brassetti A, Tuderti G, et al. Perioperative and 1-year patient-reported outcomes of freyer versus millin versus madigan robot-assisted simple prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2020;39(6):2005-10.

Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Amparore D, Niculescu G, Volpi G, Piramide F, et al. Urethral-sparing robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: An innovative technique to preserve ejaculatory function overcoming the limitation of the standard Millin approach. Eur Urol. 2021;80(2):222-33.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372(n71):1-6.

McGrath S, Zhao X, Steele R, Thombs BD, Benedetti A, Levis B, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;29(9):2520-37.

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al, Editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons. 2019.

Fiori C, Piramide F, Amparore D, Checcucci E, De Cillis S, Verri P, et al. Robotic assisted urethral sparing simple prostatectomy: The way to solve LUTS due to large prostate and maintain ejaculation. Urol Video J. 2022;14:100147.

Choi SW, Sohn DW, Ha U-Syn, Hong SH, Lee JY, Cho HJ. Urethra-sparing robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for postoperative antegrade ejaculation. J Clin Med. 2023;12(14):4867.

Bove AM, Pallares-Méndez R, Brassetti A, Mastroianni R, Tuderti G, Anceschi U, et al. Novel composite BPH3 trifecta for robotic assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) versus BPH6: A multicenter outcomes comparison. Urologia. 2024;91(4):755-61.

Shin YS, Pak SW, Hwang W, Jo SB, Kim JW, Oh MM, et al. Urethral sparing versus trans-vesical robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: A comparative analysis of perioperative, postoperative outcomes, and ejaculation preservation. World J Mens Health. 2024;42(e60):1-8.

Marra G, Sturch P, Oderda M, Tabatabaei S, Muir G, Gontero P. Systematic review of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatments on men’s ejaculatory function: Time for a bespoke approach? Int J Urol. 2015;23(1):22-35.

Jun L, Zhangqun Y, Weilie H. Modified madigan prostatectomy: A procedure preserved prostatic urethra intact. Curr Med Sci. 2005;25(3):323-5.

Leonardi R. The LEST technique: Treatment of prostatic obstruction preserving antegrade ejaculation in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2019;91(1):35-42.

Sturch P, Woo HH, McNicholas T, Muir G. Ejaculatory dysfunction after treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms: Retrograde ejaculation or retrograde thinking? BJU Int. 2014;115(2):186-7.

Shuai H, Xu P, Xu Q, Luo J, Zhou L, Zhou J, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy and laser enucleation of prostate for large benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Robot Surg. 2023;17(6):2687-95.