Abstract
Purpose
Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) is an established surgical procedure for the management of obstructive symptoms caused by large adenomas. Traditionally, this is performed according to the trans-vescical (Freyer) or trans-capsular (Millin) technique. We recently described a novel urethra-sparing (Madigan) robotic technique which showed promising preliminary results. In this study, we compared the above techniques for perioperative and 1-year patient-reported outcomes.
Methods
We retrospectively collected data from patients who underwent RASP across the three techniques, performed by two experienced surgeons in our center. We assessed patient self-reported pre-operative and post-operative functional outcomes with validated questionnaires: IPSS, IIEF short form, ICIQ short form, MSHQ Short Form. Continuous and categorical variables were compared between groups using the Mood’s median test and the Chi-square tests, respectively.
Results
Millin, Madigan and Freyer procedures were performed in 23 (51%), 14 (31%) and 8 (18%) cases, respectively. No significant differences were observed for baseline ASA score, BMI, prostate volume, IPSS, IIEF, ICIQ and MSHQ scores (all p ≥ 0.2), as well as post-operative obstructive symptoms relief (IPSS: p = 0.25), continence (ICIQ: p = 0.54), complication rates (p = 0.32) and hospital stay (p = 0.23). Operative time was longer for Madigan procedures (p = 0.05). The 1-year MSHQ and IIEF scores were significantly higher in the Madigan cohort (p = 0.008 and p = 0.04, respectively).
Conclusion
RASP proved to be a safe surgical approach, providing an effective and durable relief of obstructive symptoms at mid-term follow-up regardless of the technique used. The Madigan technique provided significant benefits in terms of self-assessed quality of sexual function.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and material
The datasets generated during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Oelke M, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A et al (2013) EAU guidelines on the treatment and follow-up of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol 64:118–140
Vince R, Hampton LJ, Vartolomei MD, Shariat SF, Porpiglia F, Autorino R (2018) Robotic assisted simple prostatectomy: recent advances. Curr Opin Urol 28:309–314
Freyer PJ (1900) A new method of performing perineal prostatectomy. Br Med J 2047:698–699
Millin T (1947) The surgery of prostatic obstructions. Ir J Med Sci 257:185–189
Simone G, Misuraca L, Anceschi U et al (2019) Urethra and ejaculation preserving robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: near-infrared fluorescence imaging-guided madigan technique. Eur Urol 75:492–497
McVary KT, Roehrborn CG, Avins AL et al (2011) Update on AUA guideline on the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. J Urol 185:1793–1803
Parsons JK, Wilt TJ, Wang PY et al (2010) Progression of lower urinary tract symptoms in older men: a community based study. J Urol 183:1915–1920
Marra G, Sturch P, Oderda M, Tabatabaei S, Muir G, Gontero P (2016) Systematic review of lower urinary tract symptoms/benign pros-tatic hyperplasia surgical treatments on men's ejaculatory function: time for a bespoke approach? Int J Urol 23:22–35
Serretta V, Morgia G, Fondacaro L et al (1990s) Open prostatectomy for benign prostatic enlargement in southern Europe in the late 1990s: a contemporary series of 1800 interventions. Urology 60:623–627
Gratzke C, Schlenker B, Seitz M et al (2007) Complications and early postoperative outcome after open prostatectomy in patients with benign prostatic enlargement: results of a prospective multicenter study. J Urol 177:1419–1422
Suer E, Gokce I, Yaman O et al (2008) Open prostatectomy is still a valid option for large prostates: a high-volume, single-center experience. Urology 72:90–94
Zargooshi J (2007) Open prostatectomy for benign prostate hyperplasia: short-term outcome in 3000 consecutive patients. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 10:374–377
Dixon AR, Lord PH, Madigan MR (1990) The Madigan prostatectomy. J Urol 144:1401–1403
Quan C, Chang W, Chen J, Li Bo, Niu Y (2011) Laparoscopic Madigan prostatectomy. J Endourol 25:1879–1882
Sturch P, Woo HH, McNicholas T, Muir G (2015) Ejaculatory dysfunction after treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms: retrograde ejaculation or retrograde thinking? BJU Int 115:186–187
Sotelo R, Clavijo R, Carmona O et al (2008) Robotic simple prostatectomy. J Urol 179:513–515
Sorokin I, Sundaram V, Singla N et al (2017) Robot-assisted versus open simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia in large glands: a propensity score-matched comparison of perioperative and short term outcomes. J Endourol 31:1164–1169
Parsons JK, Rangarajan S, Palazzi K et al (2015) A national, comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes of open and minimally invasive simple prostatectomy. J Endourol 29:919–924
Wang P, **a D, Ye S et al (2018) Robotic-assisted urethra-sparing simple prostatectomy via an extraperitoneal approach. Urology 119:85–90
Hutch JA, Rambo ON (1970) A study of the anatomy of the prostate, prostatic urethra and the urinary sphincter system. J Urol 104:443–452
Lu J, Ye Z, Hu W (2005) Modified madigan prostatectomy: a procedure preserved prostatic urethra intact. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci 25:323–325
Simone G, Tuderti G, Anceschi U et al (2019) “Ride the Green Light”: indocyanine green-marked off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy for totally endophytic renal masses. Eur Urol 75:1008–1014
Stolzenburg J-U, Kallidonis P, Kyriazis I et al (2018) Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy by an extraperitoneal approach. J Endourol 32(S1):S39–S43
Kim M, Song SH, Ku JH, Kim HJ, Paick JS (2015) Pilot study of the clinical efficacy of ejaculatory hood sparing technique for ejaculation preservation in Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate. Int J Impot Res 27:20–24
Kim JK, Cho MC, Son H, Ku JH, Oh SJ, Paick JS (2017) Patient perception of ejaculatory volume reduction after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). Urology 99:142–147
Ben Rhouma S, Ben Chehida MA, Ahmed S et al (2016) MP42-18 can we preserve ejaculation after transurethral resection of the prostate? Comparative study between the conventional technique and a new technique about 70 cases. J Urol 195:e577
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AMB: Protocol/project development, Data collection, Manuscript writing. UA: Data collection, results interpretation. MF: Data collection, Manuscript editing. RM: Data collection, Statistical analysis. AB: Statistical analysis, results interpretation. GT: Project development, Data collection. MG: Study design, interpretation of results, data collection. GS: Project development, results interpretation, Manuscript editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Informed consent
For this study, written consent was obtained from every patient to use their deidentified data. The authors confirm that an Institutional Review Board approved the study and informed consent for this retrospective study was waived according to the national laws.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This study is a retrospective analysis, therefore, it did not involve human participants and/or animals.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bove, A.M., Anceschi, U., Ferriero, M. et al. Perioperative and 1-year patient-reported outcomes of Freyer versus Millin versus Madigan robot-assisted simple prostatectomy. World J Urol 39, 2005–2010 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03391-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03391-w