Same Day Discharge versus Inpatient Surgery for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Study

(1) Background: no study has compared outcomes of same day discharge (SDD) versus inpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in homogenous cohorts. Our aim was to compare perioperative outcomes and urinary continence recovery between SDD and inpatient RARP in contemporary, comparable patients. (2) Methods: we included consecutive patients undergoing RARP between 2018 and 2020 (n = 376). Only patients eligible for SDD (no oral anticoagulant, distance home-hospital <150 km) and having >6-month follow-up were included (n = 180). All patients underwent RARP with or without lymph node dissection. Comparisons were performed between SDD (n = 42) and inpatient RARP (n = 138). Primary outcomes were 90-day complication and readmission rates and continence rates at 1 and 6 months. (3) Results: median patient age was 66.7 years. Median duration of surgery and blood loss was 134 min and 200 mL, respectively. Lymph node dissection and nerve-sparing procedures were performed in 76.7% and 82.2% of cases, respectively. Median follow-up was 19.5 months. No difference was seen regarding patient features, peri-operative outcomes, and pathology parameters between both groups. The proportion of SDD RARP was stable over time (23.5%). The 90-day unplanned visits, readmission and complication rates were 9.5%, 7.1%, and 19.0% in SDD patients versus 14.5% (p = 0.407), 10.1% (p = 0.560), 28.3% (p = 0.234) for inpatient RARP, respectively. Trends favoring SDD were not statistically significant. Continence rates at 1-(p = 0.589) and 6-months (p = 0.674) were comparable between SDD and inpatient RARP. The main limitation was the lack of randomization. (4) Conclusions: this multi-surgeon comparative study confirms the safety of routine SDD RARP in terms of perioperative and functional outcomes. Trends favoring SDD in terms of complications, emergency visits and readmission have to be confirmed

Oncological and safety profiles in patients undergoing simultaneous transurethral resection (TUR) of bladder tumour and TUR of the prostate

Objectives: To determine the oncological impact and adverse events of performing simultaneous transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURB) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), as evidence on the outcomes of simultaneous TURB for bladder cancer and TURP for obstructive benign prostatic hyperplasia is limited and contradictory. Patients and methods: Patients from 12 European hospitals treated with either TURB alone or simultaneous TURB and TURP (TURB+TURP) were retrospectively analysed. A propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 was performed with patients from the TURB+TURP group matched to TURB-alone patients. Associations between surgery approach with recurrence-free (RFS) and progression-free (PFS) survivals were assessed in Cox regression models before and after PSM. We performed a subgroup analysis in patients with risk factors for recurrence (multifocality and/or tumour size >3 cm). Results: A total of 762 men were included, among whom, 76% (581) underwent a TURB alone and 24% (181) a TURB+TURP. There was no difference in terms of tumour characteristics between the groups. We observed comparable length of stay as well as complication rates including major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III) for the TURB-alone vs TURB+TURP groups, while the latest led to longer operative time (P < 0.001). During a median follow-up of 44 months, there were more recurrences in the TURB-alone (47%) compared to the TURB+TURP group (28%; P < 0.001). Interestingly, there were more recurrences at the bladder neck/prostatic fossa in the TURB-alone group (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001). TURB+TURP procedures were associated with improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.53; P < 0.001), but not PFS (HR 1.63, 95% CI 0.90-2.98; P = 0.11). Within the PSM cohort of 254 patients, the simultaneous TURB+TURP was still associated with improved RFS (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.49; P < 0.001). This was also true in the subgroup of 380 patients with recurrence risk factors (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.28-0.62; P < 0.001). Conclusion: In our contemporary cohort, simultaneous TURB and TURP seems to be an oncologically safe option that may, even, improve RFS by potentially preventing disease recurrence at the bladder neck and in the prostatic fossa

An Algorithm to Personalize Nerve Sparing in Men with Unilateral High-Risk Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE Current guidelines do not provide strong recommendations on preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy in case of high-risk (HR) prostate cancer and/or suspicious extraprostatic extension (EPE). We aimed to evaluate when, in case of unilateral HR disease, contralateral nerve sparing (NS) should be considered or not. MATERIALS AND METHODS Within a multi-institutional data set we selected patients with unilateral HR prostate cancer, defined as unilateral EPE and/or seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) on multiparametric (mp) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or unilateral International Society of Urologic Pathologists (ISUP) 4-5 or prostate specific antigen ≥20 ng/ml. To evaluate when to perform NS based on the risk of contralateral EPE, we relied on chi-square automated interaction detection, a recursive machine-learning partitioning algorithm developed to identify risk groups, which was fit to predict the presence of EPE on final pathology, contralaterally to the prostate lobe with HR disease. RESULTS A total of 705 patients were identified. Contralateral EPE was documented in 87 patients (12%). Chi-square automated interaction detection identified 3 groups, consisting of 1) absence of SVI on mpMRI and index lesion diameter ≤15 mm, 2) index lesion diameter ≤15 mm and contralateral ISUP 2-3 or index lesion diameter >15 mm and negative contralateral biopsy or ISUP 1, and 3) SVI on mpMRI or index lesion diameter >15 mm and contralateral biopsy ISUP 2-3. We named those groups as low, intermediate and high-risk, respectively, for contralateral EPE. The rate of EPE and positive surgical margins across the groups were 4.8%, 14% and 26%, and 5.6%, 13% and 18%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Our study challenges current guidelines by proving that wide bilateral excision in men with unilateral HR disease is not justified. Pending external validation, we propose performing NS and incremental NS in case of contralateral low and intermediate EPE risk, respectively