Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does previous transurethral resection of the prostate negatively influence subsequent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men diagnosed with prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is not uncommon to incidentally discover prostate cancer during the transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and necessitate a subsequent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). The study aims to evaluate whether TURP have negative influence on subsequent RARP. Through a literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, 10 studies with 683 patients who underwent RARP after previous TURP and 4039 patients who underwent RARP only were identified for the purposes of the meta-analysis. Compared to standard RARP, RARP after TURP was related to longer operative time (WMD: 29.1 min, 95% CI: 13.3–44.8, P < 0.001), more blood loss (WMD: 49.3 ml, 95% CI: 8.8–89.7, P = 0.02), longer time to catheter removal (WMD: 0.93 days, 95% CI: 0.41–1.44, P < 0.001), higher rates of overall (RR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.08–1.95, P = 0.01) and major complications (RR: 3.67, 95% Cl: 1.63–8.24, P = 0.002), frequently demand for bladder neck reconstruction (RR: 5.46, 95% CI: 3.15–9.47, P < 0.001) and lower succeed in nerve sparing (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62–0.87, P < 0.001). In terms of quality of life, there are worse recovery of urinary continence (RR of incontinence rate: RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02–1.52, P = 0.03) and potency (RR: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.73–0.89, P < 0.001) at 1 year in RARP with previous TURP. In addition, the RARP with previous TURP had greater percentage positive margins (RR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.02–1.52, P = 0.03), while there is no difference in length of stay and biochemical recurrence rate at 1 year. RARP is feasible but challenging after TURP. It significantly increases the difficulty of operation and compromises surgical, functional and oncological outcomes. It is important for urologists and patients to be aware of the negative impact of TURP on subsequent RARP and establish treatment strategies to lessen the adverse effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data will be made available for bona fide researchers on request.

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2022) Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72:7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gray PJ, Lin CC, Cooperberg MR, Jemal A, Efstathiou JA (2017) Temporal trends and the impact of race, insurance, and socioeconomic status in the management of localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 71:729–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gupta NP, Singh P, Nayyar R (2011) Outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men with previous transurethral resection of prostate. BJU Int 108:1501–1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10113.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hung CF, Yang CK, Ou YC (2014) Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following transurethral resection of the prostate: perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes. Prostate Int 2:82–89. https://doi.org/10.12954/PI.14046

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Su YK et al (2015) Does previous transurethral prostate surgery affect oncologic and continence outcomes after RARP? J Robot Surg 9:291–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-015-0529-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Garg H, Seth A, Kumar R (2022) Impact of previous transurethral resection of prostate on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a matched cohort analysis. J Robot Surg 16:1123–1131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01348-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tugcu V et al (2015) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery. JSLS 19:e2015 00080. https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2015.00080

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gellhaus PT et al (2015) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with a history of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: feasibility and evaluation of initial outcomes. J Endourol 29:764–769. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zugor V, Labanaris AP, Porres D, Witt JH (2012) Surgical, oncologic, and short-term functional outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate. J Endourol 26:515–519. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shamseer L et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 350:g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:135. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Comm Health 52:377–384. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.6.377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hampton L, Nelson RA, Satterthwaite R, Wilson T, Crocitto L (2008) Patients with prior TURP undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy have higher positive surgical margin rates. J Robot Surg 2:213–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-008-0121-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abedali ZA et al (2020) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with a history of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: the Indiana university experience. J Endourol 34:163–168. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Leyh-Bannurah SR et al (2021) Perioperative and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in prostate cancer patients with prior transurethral subvesical deobstruction: results of a high-volume center. J Urol 206:308–318. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Merrill RM, Wiggins CL (2002) Incidental detection of population-based prostate cancer incidence rates through transurethral resection of the prostate. In: Urologic oncology: seminars and original investigations. Elsevier vol 7, no 5, pp 213–219

  18. Colombo R et al (2006) Radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: clinical and functional outcomes. J Urol 176:2459–2463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.07.140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R (2006) Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)–incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 50:969–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.12.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wolin KY, Luly J, Sutcliffe S, Andriole GL, Kibel AS (2010) Risk of urinary incontinence following prostatectomy: the role of physical activity and obesity. J Urol 183:629–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sandhu JS et al (2019) Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol 202:369–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cooperberg MR, Odisho AY, Carroll PR (2012) Outcomes for radical prostatectomy: is it the singer, the song, or both? J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 30:476–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Checcucci E et al (2021) The importance of anatomical reconstruction for continence recovery after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis from referral centers. Minerva Urol Nephrol 73:165–177. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.20.04146-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mungovan SF et al (2021) Preoperative exercise interventions to optimize continence outcomes following radical prostatectomy. Nat Rev Urol 18:259–281. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41585-021-00445-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Fernandez RA et al (2015) Improvement of continence rate with pelvic floor muscle training post-prostatectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Urol Int 94:125–132. https://doi.org/10.1159/000368618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yossepowitch O et al (2009) Positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: outlining the problem and its long-term consequences. Eur Urol 55:87–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.09.051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mottet N et al (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 71:618–629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Anand A, Gupta S (2021) Prostate-specific antigen increase after urethral catheterisation: fact or myth. Afr J Urol 27:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Johnson DC et al (2019) Detection of individual prostate cancer foci via multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Urol 75:712–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.11.031

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang C et al (2022) Combination of PI-RADS score and PSAD can improve the diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer and reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies. Front Oncol 12:1024204. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.1024204

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Jiao J et al (2021) Establishment and prospective validation of an SUV(max) cutoff value to discriminate clinically significant prostate cancer from benign prostate diseases in patients with suspected prostate cancer by (68)Ga-PSMA PET/CT: a real-world study. Theranostics 11:8396–8411. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.58140

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The author have not disclosed any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China

    Yijian Li, Xurui Li & Wentao Liu

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, Hunan, China

    Li Gu

Authors
  1. Li Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yijian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xurui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wentao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LG: statistical analysis, data extraction, revised manuscripts. YL: statistical analysis, data extraction. XL: statistical analysis, data extraction. WL: study design, statistical analysis, data extraction, wrote the paper. All the authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wentao Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors have no conflict of interest to declare. All the authors have no conflict of financial and non-financial interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 415 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gu, L., Li, Y., Li, X. et al. Does previous transurethral resection of the prostate negatively influence subsequent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men diagnosed with prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robotic Surg 17, 1299–1307 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01588-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01588-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation