Perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes after open and minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery: experience from Australasia.

OBJECTIVE

•  To systematically review the current literature concerning perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes reported after open and minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery specifically from institutions within Australasia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

•  Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies reporting outcome after open and minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery. Studies were sought using the search term 'radical prostatectomy'. •  In all, 11,378 articles were retrieved. For the purpose of this review, data were only extracted from studies reporting Australasian experience. •  A total of 28 studies met final inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

•  Overall, the data are limited by the low methodological quality of available studies. •  Only two comparative studies evaluating open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP) were identified, both non-randomized. •  The mean blood loss, catheterization time and hospital stay was shorter after RALP than with ORP. In contrast, mean operative procedure time was significantly longer for RALP. •  Overall adverse event rates were similar for the different surgical approaches although the rate of bladder neck stricture was significantly higher after open RP. •  Incorporation of patient outcomes achieved by surgeons still within their learning curve resulted in a trend towards higher positive surgical margin rates and lower continence scores after RALP. However, there was equivalence once the surgeons' learning curve was overcome. Given the limited follow-up for RALP and laparoscopic RP (14.7 and 6 months vs 43.8 months for ORP) and the lack of data concerning erectile function status, comparison of biochemical failure and potency was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

•  Few comparative data are available from Australasia concerning open and minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery. •  While perioperative outcomes appear to favour minimally invasive approaches, further comparative assessment of functional and long-term oncological efficacy for the different surgical approaches is required to better define the role of minimally invasive approaches.