Does previous transurethral resection of the prostate affect the outcomes in robotic assisted radical prostatectomy?

• Published in: World journal of urology Vol. 42; no. 1; p. 384
• Main Authors: Jaber, Abdel Rahman, Moschovas, Marcio Covas, Noel, Jonathan, Stirt, Daniel, Rogers, Travis, Saikali, Shady, Gamal, Ahmed, Sandri, Marco, Sorce, Gabriele, Mottrie, Alexandre, Patel, Vipul
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 22.06.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Anatomy; Catheters; Complications; Fibrosis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nephrology; Oncology; Original Article; Postoperative; Prostate; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Robotic surgery; Statistical analysis; Urology; Radical prostatectomy; Prostate cancer; Robotic-assisted; Transurethral resection of the prostate
• ISSN: 1433-8726; 0724-4983; 1433-8726
• DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05105-y

Purpose Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is one of the surgical options for treating enlarged prostates with lower urinary symptoms (LUTS). In this older group of patients, concomitant prostate cancer is not uncommon. However, the fibrosis and distortion of the prostate anatomy by prior TURP can potentially hinder surgical efficacy at robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We aim to evaluate functional, and oncologic outcomes of RARP in patients with and without previous TURP. Methods 231 men with previous TURP underwent RARP (TURP group). These men were propensity score matched using clinicopathological characteristics to men without previous TURP who underwent RARP (Control group). Perioperative and postoperative variables were analysed for significant differences in outcomes between groups. Variables analysed included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, catheter time, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, positive surgical margins (PSM) rates, cancer status, biochemical recurrence (BCR), potency, and continence rates. Results Patients in the TURP group showed no statistically significant differences in operative safety measures including median EBL, operative time, catheter time, hospitalization time or postoperative complications. No significant difference between the groups in terms of potency rates and continence rates. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in oncological outcomes, including PSM rates (15% vs 18%, P = 0.3) and BCR. Conclusion In RARP after TURP there is often noticeable distortion of the surgical anatomy. For an experienced team the procedure is safe and provides similar oncologic control and functional outcomes to RARP in patients without previous TURP.