N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,536
Online ISSN 1827-1758
Homayoun ZARGAR 1, 2, Alastair D. LAMB 3, Bernardo ROCCO 4, Francesco PORPIGLIA 5, Evangelos LIATSIKOS 6, John DAVIS 7, Rafael F. COELHO 8, Julio M. POW-SANG 9, Vipul R. PATEL 10, Declan G. MURPHY 2, 3
1 Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; 2 Australian Prostate Cancer Research Centre, Epworth Healthcare, Richmond, Australia; 3 Division of Cancer Surgery, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; 4 European Institute of Urology, Milan, Italy; 5 University Urology Department at San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, School of Medicine, Orbassano, Italy; 6 University of Patras, Greece; 7 Department of Urology, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; 8 Department of Urology, University of São Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil; Brazil Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil; 9 Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, USA; 10 Global Robotics Institute, Florida Hospital-Celebration Health, University of Central Florida College of Medicine, Orlando, FL, USA
INTRODUCTION: The published data on salvage robot assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) is limited. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of the literature on sRARP after radiation failure in patients with prostate cancer and systematically analyse the available evidence for operative and oncological outcomes.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature using Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane library and ScienceDirect databases was performed in June 2016 using medical subject headings and free-text protocol. The search was conducted by applying the following search terms: salvage therapy, salvage, prostatectomy and robotics.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We report on ten case series including 197 men undergoing sRARP after varying modalities of radiotherapy. Over two thirds are recurrence free at the time of follow-up but with continence rates of only 60% and potency rates of only 26%. Complications requiring intervention are few at 16% though higher than primary RARP.
CONCLUSIONS: sRARP is increasingly acceptable as a treatment modality to be offered to men who fail initial radiation treatment but should be accompanied by appropriate counselling regarding the potential functional outcomes and complications. Series with longer follow up will be helpful to assess the durability of oncological outcomes while improvements in patient selection and adaption of meticulous surgical technique around the apex could improve continence rates. The concept of concomitant extended PLND remains an issue for debate and the experience with this approach at the time of sRARP and its benefit need further scrutiny.