Objectives: To compare robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy with conventional retropubic radical prostatectomy in maintaining pre-surgery levels of urinary and sexual functioning and to evaluate the efficacy of nerve sparing in prostatectomies in protecting urinary functioning. Material and Methods: Patients (n = 385) receiving both surgical procedures were surveyed prior to surgery. Multiple measures, including the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, the Sexual Health Inventory for Men, and the International Prostate Symptom Score, assessed sexual and urinary function at an average of 12 months post-surgery. Results: Across multiple measures, while controlling for pre-surgical sexual functioning, robotic-assisted surgery did not offer an advantage in maintaining sexual or urinary function an average of a year following the prostatectomy. Bilateral nerve sparing offered a strong and reliable advantage in the maintenance of sexual function, but not so regarding urinary function. Conclusion: While robotic-assisted prostatectomies may offer a number of medical advantages over open procedures, we found no significant effect on important quality of life outcomes associated with the technique.

Keywords:
Prostate cancer, Quality of life, Sexual function, Urinary incontinence, Robotic-assisted prostatectomy
1.
Baade PD, Youlden DR, Krnjacki LJ: International epidemiology of prostate cancer: geographical distribution and secular trends. Mol Nutr Food Res 2009;53:171-184.
2.
Byers T, Wender RC, Jemal A, Baskies AM, Ward EE, Brawley OW: The American Cancer Society challenge goal to reduce US cancer mortality by 50% between 1990 and 2015: results and reflections. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:359-369.
3.
Wong MC, Goggins WB, Wang HH, Fung FD, Leung C, Wong SY, Ng CF, Sung JJ: Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries. Eur Urol 2016;70:862-874.
4.
Zhou CK, Check DP, Lortet-Tieulent J, La-versanne M, Jemal A, Ferlay J, Bray F, Cook MB, Devesa SS: Prostate cancer incidence in 43 populations worldwide: an analysis of time trends overall and by age group. Int J Cancer 2016;138:1388-1400.
5.
Wittmann D, Northouse L, Foley S Gilbert S, Wood DP Jr, Balon R, Montie JE: The psychosocial aspects of sexual recovery after prostate cancer treatment. Int J Impot Res 2009;21:99-106.
6.
Singer P, Tasch E, Stocking C, Rubin S, Siegler M, Weichselbaum R: Sex or survival: trade-offs between quality and quantity of life. J Clin Oncol 2009;9:328-334.
7.
Chartier-Kastler E., Amar E, Chevallier D, Montaigne O, Coulange C, Joubert JM, Giuliano F: Does management of erectile dysfunction after RP meet patients' expectations? Results of a national survey (REPAIR) by the French Urological Association. J Sex Med 2008;5:693-704.
8.
Adam M, Tennstedt P, Lanwehr D, Tilki D, Steuber T, Beyer B, Thederan I, Heinzer H, Haese A, Salomon G, Budäus L, Michl U, Pehrke D, Stattin P, Bernard J, Klaus B, Pompe RS, Petersen C, Huland H, Graefen M, Schwarz R, Huber W, Loeb S, Schlomm T: Functional outcomes and quality of life after radical prostatectomy only versus a combination of prostatectomy with radiation and hormonal therapy. Eur Urol 2017;71:330- 336.
9.
Sopko NA, Burnett AL: Erection rehabilitation following prostatectomy - current strategies and future directions. Nat Rev Urol 2016;13:216-225.
10.
10 Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van Poppel H: Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009;55:1037-1063.
11.
Murphy DG, Bjartell A, Ficarra V, Graefen M, Haese A, Montironi R, Montorsi F, Moul JW, Novara G, Sauter G, Sulser T, van der Poel H: Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. Eur Urol 2010; 57:735-746.
12.
Asimakopoulos AD, Fraga P, Annino F, Pasqualetti P, Calado AA, Mugnier C: Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med 2011;8:1503-1512.
13.
Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML, Gettman MT: Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques, BJU Int 2009;103:448-453.
14.
Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch A, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P: Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:1-15.
15.
Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, Jeong W, Shariat SF, Hansen J, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Rogers CG, Peabody JO, Montorsi F, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI: Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 2012; 61:679-685.
16.
Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Hoznek, A. Abbou CC, Salomon L: Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2014;65:610-619.
17.
Porpiglia F, Morra I, Chiarissi, MC, Manfredi M, Mele F, Grande S, Ragni F, Poggio M, Fiori C: Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2013;63:606-614.
18.
Nason GJ, O'Kelly F, White S, Dunne E, Smyth GP, Power RE: Patient reported functional outcomes following robotic-assisted (RARP), laparoscopic (LRP), and open radical prostatectomies (ORP). Ir J Med Sci 2016;1-6.
19.
Davison BJ, Matthew A, Gardner AM: Prospective comparison of the impact of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy on health-related quality of life and decision regret. Can Urol Assoc J 2014;8:E68-E72.
20.
Ludovico GM, Dachille G, Pagliarulo G, D'Elia C, Mondaini N, Gacci M, Detti B, Malossini G, Bartoletti R, Cai T: Bilateral nerve sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is associated with faster continence recovery but not with erectile function recovery compared with retropubic open prostatectomy: the need for accurate selection of patients. Oncol Rep 2013;29:2445-2450.
21.
Hakimi AA, Blitstein J, Feder M, Shapiro E, Ghavamian R: Direct comparison of surgical and functional outcomes of robotic-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single-surgeon experience. Urology 2009;73:119-123.
22.
Barry M, Gallagher P, Skinner J, Fowler F: Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol 2012;30: 513-518.
23.
Rosen RC, Cappelleri JC, Smith MD, Lipsky J, Pena BM: Development and evaluation of an abridged, 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) as a diagnostic tool for erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 1999;11:319-326.
24.
Victorson DE, Schuette S, Schalet BD, Kundu SD, Helfand BT, Novakovic K, Sufrin N, McGuire M, Brendler C: Factors affecting quality of life at different Intervals after treatment of localized prostate cancer: unique influence of treatment decision making satisfaction, personality and sexual functioning. J Urol 2016;196:1422-1428.
25.
Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG: Development and validation of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology 2000;56:899-905.
26.
Barry MJ, Fowler FJ Jr, O'Leary MP, Bruskewitz RC, Holtgrewe HL, Mebust WK, Cockett AT: The American Urological Association symptom index for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The Measurement Committee of the American Urological Association. J Urol 1992;148:1549-1557.
27.
Krishnan R, Katz D, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP: Erectile function recovery in patients after non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. Andrology 2014;2:951-954.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.