Abstract
Background
This study aimed to compare the pentafecta rates between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP) and to identify prognostic factors predicting the pentafecta for each technique.
Methods
This prospective comparative study enrolled 248 consecutive male patients 70 years of age or younger with clinically localized prostate cancer [PCa: age ≤70 years, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤10 ng/ml, biopsy Gleason score ≤7] who were fully continent, potent, and candidates for bilateral nerve-sparing (BNS) LRP or RALP. The pentafecta rates between LRP and RALP were compared. A logistic regression model was created to evaluate independent factors for achieving pentafecta.
Results
In the final analysis, 91 LRP and 136 RALP patients were evaluated. The median follow-up period was 21 months for the 91 LRP patients and 18 months for the 136 RALP patients (p = 0.07). Of the 227 patients, 87 reached pentafecta [25 LRP patients (27.5 %) vs 62 RALP patients (45.6 %), p = 0.006]. Of the 140 patients who failed pentafecta, 90 (64.3 %) missed a single parameter, and the difference between the groups was significant (80 % LRP vs 53.3 % RALP, p = 0.007). Lower age, lower pathologic stage, and RALP are significantly associated with pentafecta as independent factors. For the pT3 disease, the two techniques did not differ significantly.
Conclusions
Patients submitted to BNS RP have low possibilities of achieving pentafecta. Use of the robotic platform by a single surgeon significantly enhances the possibility of achieving pentafecta independently of age and pathologic stage. Potency was the most difficult outcome to reach after surgery, and it was the main factor leading to pentafecta failure. LRP and RALP provide equivalent pentafecta rates for the pT3 disease and similar “tetrafecta” outcomes when potency recovery is not included among the postoperative expectations of the patient.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid HP, van der Kwast T, Wiegel T, Zattoni F, European Association of Urology (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer: part 1. screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localized disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71
Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2005) Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 66(5 suppl):83–94
Saranchuk JW, Kattan MW, Elkin E, Touijer AK, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2005) Achieving optimal outcomes after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Oncol 23:4146–4151
Salomon L, Saint F, Anastasiadis AG, Sebe P, Chopin D, Abbou C–C (2003) Combined reporting of cancer control and functional results of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 44:656–660
Ficarra V, Sooriakumaran P, Novara G, Schatloff O, Briganti A, Van der Poel H, Montorsi F, Patel V, Tewari A, Mottrie A (2012) Systematic review of methods for reporting combined outcomes after radical prostatectomy and proposal of a novel system: the survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification. Eur Urol 61:541–548
Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF et al (2011) Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59:702–707
Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Kattan MW (2008) Predicting an optimal outcome after radical prostatectomy: the trifecta nomogram. J Urol 179:2207–2210
Asimakopoulos AD, Montes VEC, Gaston R (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with intrafascial dissection of the neurovascular bundles and preservation of the pubovesical complex: a step-by-step description of the technique. J Endourol 26:1578–1585. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0405 Epub 16 October 2012
Asimakopoulos AD, Annino F, D’Orazio A, Pereira CF, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL, Piechaud T, Gaston R (2010) Complete periprostatic anatomy preservation during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP): the new pubovesical complex-sparing technique. Eur Urol 58:407–417. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2010.04.032 Epub 18 May 2010
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6, 336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Cookson MS, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, D’Amico AV, Dmochowski RR, Eton DT, Forman JD, Goldenberg SL, Hernandez J, Higano CS, Kraus SR, Moul JW, Tangen C, Thrasher JB, Thompson I (2007) Variation in the definition of biochemical recurrence in patients treated for localized prostate cancer: the American Urological Association Prostate Guidelines for Localized Prostate Cancer Update Panel report and recommendations for a standard in the reporting of surgical outcomes. J Urol 177:540–545
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel VR, Stolzenburg JU, Van der Poel H, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Mottrie A (2012) Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405–417. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Menon M, Mottrie A, Patel VR, Van der Poel H, Rosen RC, Tewari AK, Wilson TG, Zattoni F, Montorsi F (2012) Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.046
Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P (2012) Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:1–15. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.029
Porpiglia F, Morra I, Chiarissi ML, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S, Ragni F, Poggio M, Fiori C (2013) Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 63:606–614
Asimakopoulos AD, Pereira Fraga CT, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C (2011) Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 8:1503–1512
Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, Salomon L (2012) Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049
Park B, Kim W, Jeong BC, Jeon SS, Lee HM, Choi HY, Seo SI (2013) Comparison of oncological and functional outcomes of pure versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon. Scand J Urol 47:10–18. doi:10.3109/00365599.2012.696137
Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, Albala DM, Price MM, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN, Tewari AK, Moul JW (2008) Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54:785–793. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.063 Epub 23 June 2008
Pierorazio PM, Spencer BA, McCann TR, McKiernan JM, Benson MC (2007) Preoperative risk stratification predicts likelihood of concurrent PSA-free survival, continence, and potency (the trifecta analysis) after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 70:717–722
Xylinas E, Durad X, Ploussard G et al (2013) Evaluation of combined oncologic and functional outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: trifecta rate of achieving continence, potency, and cancer control. Urol Oncol 31:99–103. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2010.10.012
Disclosures
Drs. Anastasios D. Asimakopoulos, Roberto Miano, Nicola Di Lorenzo, Enrico Spera, Giuseppe Vespasiani, and Camille Mugnier have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Asimakopoulos, A.D., Miano, R., Di Lorenzo, N. et al. Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: comparison of pentafecta rates for a single surgeon. Surg Endosc 27, 4297–4304 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3046-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-013-3046-9