Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2022 Jul 27:S2173-5786(22)00069-5. doi: 10.1016/j.acuroe.2022.07.001. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The most frequently studied factors in patients treated by robotic radical prostatectomy are PSA and pathological features of the biopsy and prostatectomy specimen. Studies on the factors associated with the surgical technique are scarce and with controversial results. The objective is to identify all possible surgical factors and their relationship with disease-free and metastasis-free survival.
PATIENTS AND METHOD: Prospective study approved by the Ethics Committee, including patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy since January 2009 with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Surgeon, surgical time, blood loss, fascial access, continence techniques, preservation of the fascia, neurovascular bundles, bladder neck, urethra, learning curve and surgical complications, were analyzed as possible prognostic factors. We performed univariate and matched comparisons of survival using Kaplan-Meier estimation and long-rank tests. The significance level for multiple comparisons was established with False Discovery Rate-adjustment (adjusted p).
RESULTS: Cohort of 667 patients with a median follow-up of 69 months. In univariate analysis, surgeon (adjp=0.018), preservation of puboprostatic ligaments (adjp=0.02), preservation of endopelvic fascia (adjp=0.001) and performing periurethral suspension (adjp<0.001) are poor prognostic factors for disease-free survival. Fascia preservation also negatively affects metastasis-free survival (adjp=0.04). Previous abdominal surgeries, prostate, surgical time, blood loss, type of residual urethra, middle lobe, fascial access, fascia or bladder neck preservation, have no statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: The surgeon and specific aspects of the surgical technique are determining factors in disease-free survival. Preservation of the fascia is the only factor that negatively affects metastasis-free survival.
PMID:36328875 | DOI:10.1016/j.acuroe.2022.07.001
