International Brazilian Journal of Urology (Mar 2024)

Outcomes of Salvage Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the last decade: systematic review and perspectives of referral centers.

  • Marcio Covas Moschovas,
  • Carlo Andrea Bravi,
  • Paolo Dell'Oglio,
  • Filippo Turri,
  • Ruben de Groote,
  • Nikolaos Liakos,
  • Mike Wenzel,
  • Christoph Würnschimmel,
  • Fabrizio Di Maida,
  • Federico Piramide,
  • Iulia Andras,
  • Alberto Breda,
  • Alexandre Mottrie,
  • Vipul Patel,
  • Alessandro Larcher

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2023.0467
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 49, no. 6
pp. 677 – 687

Abstract

Read online Read online

ABSTRACT Purpose: Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) has gained prominence in recent years for treating patients with cancer recurrence following non-surgical treatments of Prostate Cancer. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the role and outcomes of S-RARP over the past decade. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was conducted, encompassing articles published between January 1st, 2013, and June 1st, 2023, on S-RARP outcomes. Articles were screened according to PRISMA guidelines, resulting in 33 selected studies. Data were extracted, including patient demographics, operative times, complications, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. Results: Among 1,630 patients from 33 studies, radiotherapy was the most common primary treatment (42%). Operative times ranged from 110 to 303 minutes, with estimated blood loss between 50 to 745 mL. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0 to 9% of cases, while postoperative complications ranged from 0 to 90% (Clavien 1-5). Continence rates varied (from 0 to 100%), and potency rates ranged from 0 to 66.7%. Positive surgical margins were reported up to 65.6%, and biochemical recurrence ranged from 0 to 57%. Conclusion: Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with cancer recurrence after previous prostate cancer treatment is safe and feasible. The literature is based on retrospective studies with inherent limitations describing low rates of intraoperative complications and small blood loss. However, potency and continence rates are largely reduced compared to the primary RARP series, despite the type of the primary treatment. Better-designed studies to assess the long-term outcomes and individually specify each primary therapy impact on the salvage treatment are still needed. Future articles should be more specific and provide more details regarding the previous therapies and S-RARP surgical techniques.

Keywords