Riccardo Bertolo1, Andrew Tracey2, Prokar Dasgupta3, Bernardo Rocco4, Salvatore Micali4, Giampaolo Bianchi4, Lance Hampton2, Ash K Tewari5, Francesco Porpiglia1, Riccardo Autorino6. 1. Department of Urology, University of Turin-San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Turin, Italy. 2. Division of Urology, McGuire VA Medical Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1210 Broad Block Blvd, Richmond, VA, 23249, USA. 3. King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK. 4. Department of Urology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 5. Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 6. Division of Urology, McGuire VA Medical Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1210 Broad Block Blvd, Richmond, VA, 23249, USA. ricautor@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide latest evidence on the use of suprapubic catheter (SPC) versus urethral catheter (UC) after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic revision of literature was performed up to September 2017 using different search engines (Pubmed, Ovid, Scopus) to identified studies comparing the use of SPC versus standard UC after RARP. Identification and selection of the studies were conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis criteria. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as a summary measure, whereas the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary variables. RR was preferred in cases of a high number of events to avoid overestimation. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model to account for clinical heterogeneity. All statistical analyses were performed using Review manager 5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). RESULTS: Eight studies were identified and included in this systematic review, namely 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized prospective studies, and one retrospective study. A total of 966 RARP cases were collected for the cumulative analysis. Among them, 492 patients received standard UC and 474 SPC placement after RARP. UC patients had higher baseline PSA (WMD 0.44 ng/ml; p = 0.02). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was found to be significantly lower in patients with SPC at postoperative day 7 (WMD 0.53; 95% CI 0.13-0.93; p = 0.009). Regarding penile pain, a significant difference in favor of the SPC group was found at postoperative day 7 assessment (WMD 1.2; 95% CI 0.82-1.6; p < 0.001). More patients in the SPC group reported "not at all" or "minimal pain" at this time point (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06, 0.44; p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of continence recovery rate at 6-12 weeks between the groups (UC 78.7%, 88.2%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84, 1.01; p = 0.09). Similarly, no differences were found in terms of catheter-related issues (p = 0.17). However, UC patients had lower likelihood of overall complications (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that the use of SPC can be a viable option for postoperative urine drainage after RARP, as it can translate into decreased postoperative pain without carrying a significant higher risk of catheter-related complications. Further investigation seems to be warranted, ideally within the framework of a multicentre randomized study with standardized analysis of outcomes.
PURPOSE: To provide latest evidence on the use of suprapubic catheter (SPC) versus urethral catheter (UC) after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic revision of literature was performed up to September 2017 using different search engines (Pubmed, Ovid, Scopus) to identified studies comparing the use of SPC versus standard UC after RARP. Identification and selection of the studies were conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis criteria. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as a summary measure, whereas the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary variables. RR was preferred in cases of a high number of events to avoid overestimation. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model to account for clinical heterogeneity. All statistical analyses were performed using Review manager 5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). RESULTS: Eight studies were identified and included in this systematic review, namely 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized prospective studies, and one retrospective study. A total of 966 RARP cases were collected for the cumulative analysis. Among them, 492 patients received standard UC and 474 SPC placement after RARP. UC patients had higher baseline PSA (WMD 0.44 ng/ml; p = 0.02). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was found to be significantly lower in patients with SPC at postoperative day 7 (WMD 0.53; 95% CI 0.13-0.93; p = 0.009). Regarding penile pain, a significant difference in favor of the SPC group was found at postoperative day 7 assessment (WMD 1.2; 95% CI 0.82-1.6; p < 0.001). More patients in the SPC group reported "not at all" or "minimal pain" at this time point (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06, 0.44; p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of continence recovery rate at 6-12 weeks between the groups (UC 78.7%, 88.2%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84, 1.01; p = 0.09). Similarly, no differences were found in terms of catheter-related issues (p = 0.17). However, UC patients had lower likelihood of overall complications (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that the use of SPC can be a viable option for postoperative urine drainage after RARP, as it can translate into decreased postoperative pain without carrying a significant higher risk of catheter-related complications. Further investigation seems to be warranted, ideally within the framework of a multicentre randomized study with standardized analysis of outcomes.
Authors: Aldo Brassetti; Paolo Emiliozzi; Antonio Cardi; Antonio DE Vico; Antonio Iannello; Aldo Scapellato; Tommaso Riga; Alberto Pansadoro; Gianluca D'Elia Journal: Minerva Urol Nefrol Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 3.720
Authors: Jonas Schiffmann; Alexander Haese; Katharina Boehm; Georg Salomon; Thomas Steuber; Hans Heinzer; Hartwig Huland; Markus Graefen; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Minerva Urol Nefrol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 3.720
Authors: Nina Harke; Michael Godes; Jawid Habibzada; Katarina Urbanova; Christian Wagner; Henrik Zecha; Mustapha Addali; Jorn H Witt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-06-22 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Peter N Wiklund; Charles Henry Rochat; Prokar Dasgupta; Benjamin J Challacombe; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Stefan Siemer; Nazareno Suardi; Giacomo Novara; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: BJU Int Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Nina Natascha Harke; Christian Wagner; Nikolaos Liakos; Katarina Urbanova; Mustapha Addali; Boris A Hadaschik; Jorn H Witt Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-05-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: M V Koning; R de Vlieger; A J W Teunissen; M Gan; E J Ruijgrok; J C de Graaff; J S H A Koopman; R J Stolker Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 6.955