Anterior vs. retzius-sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: can the approach really make a difference?

INTRODUCTION: Retzius-sparing Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RS-RARP) is a novel surgical approach to radical prostatectomy. Its pioneers have suggested an improved recovery of urinary continence, while maintaining adequate cancer control. The aim of this systematic review was to explore available data on RS-RALP and compare functional, oncologic, and perioperative results of RS-RARP compared to anterior RARP.EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A search following PRISMA guidelines was performed including the combination of the following words: "Retzius" AND "sparing" AND "radical" AND "prostatectomy." Ninety-three articles were identified and 13 were included in the systematic review, including 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 4 prospective studies and 6 retrospective studies.EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: All available randomized trials confirmed an improved immediate continence for RS-RARP, with rates ranging 51-71%, compared to 21-48% for anterior RARP. However, this advantage was progressively lost with no significant difference found after 6 months. Moreover, a prospective study found no discrepancy in terms of quality of life across the two techniques. Erectile function was difficult to compare, as patients had different baseline erectile function across studies and rate of neurovascular preservation was not comparable. Surgical approach remains controversial regarding positive margin rate, although related to the surgeon's experience and clinical stage. Biochemical recurrencefree survival appears similar between the two approaches.CONCLUSIONS: RS-RARP improves early urinary continence recovery compared to anterior RARP, with this advantage being lost after 3 to 6 months. Erectile function and quality of life were however comparable between the two techniques. The results concerning the rate of positive margins remained controversial. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to better assess oncologic outcomes

Intravenous NPA for the treatment of infarcting myocardium early: InTIME-II, a double-blind comparison on of single-bolus lanoteplase vs accelerated alteplase for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Aims to compare the efficacy and safety of lanoteplase, a single-bolus thrombolytic drug derived from alteplase tissue plasminogen activator, with the established accelerated alteplase regimen in patients presenting within 6 h of onset of ST elevation acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results 15 078 patients were recruited from 855 hospitals worldwide and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lanoteplase 120 KU. kg-1 as a single intravenous bolus, or up to 100 mg accelerated alteplase given over 90 min. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality at 30 days and the hypothesis was that the two treatments would be equivalent. By 30 days, 6.61% of alteplase-treated patients and 6.75% lanoteplase-treated patients had died (relative risk 1.02). Total stroke occurred in 1.53% alteplase- and 1.87% lanoteplase-treated patients (ns); haemorrhagic stroke rates were 0.64% alteplase and 1.12% lanoteplase (P=0.004). The net clinical deficit of 30-day death or non-fatal disabling stroke was 7.0% and 7.2%, respectively. By 6 months, 8.8% of alteplase-treated patients and 8.7% of lanoteplase-treated patients had died. Conclusion Single-bolus weight-adjusted lanoteplase is an effective thrombolytic agent, equivalent to alteplase in terms of its impact on survival and with a comparable risk-benefit profile. The single-bolus regimen should shorten symptoms to treatment times and be especially convenient for emergency department or out-of-hospital administration. (C) 2000 The European Society of Cardiology