Prostate Volume Influence on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing RARP: A Monocentric Serial Analysis of 500 Cases

Mahmoud Farzat; Josef Rosenbauer; Christian Tanislav; Florian M Wagenlehner

doi:10.3390/jcm12072491

Prostate Volume Influence on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing RARP: A Monocentric Serial Analysis of 500 Cases

J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 25;12(7):2491. doi: 10.3390/jcm12072491.

Authors

Mahmoud Farzat^{1

2}, Josef Rosenbauer³, Christian Tanislav³, Florian M Wagenlehner²

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology and Robotic Urology, Diakonie Klinikum Siegen, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
² Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, 35390 Giessen, Germany.
³ Department of Geriatric and Neurology, Diakonie Klinkum Siegen, Academic Teaching Hospital of the University of Bonn, 53127 Bonn, Germany.

Abstract

Elevated prostate volume is considered to negatively influence postoperative outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We aim to investigate the influence of prostate volume on readmissions and complications after RARP.

Methods: A total of 500 consecutive patients who underwent RARP between April 2019 and August 2022 were included. Patients were dichotomized into two groups using a prostate volume cut-off of 50 mL (small and normal prostate (SNP) n = 314, 62.8%; large prostate n = 186, 37.2%). Demographic, baseline, and perioperative data were analyzed. The postoperative complications and readmission rates within 90 days after RARP were compared between groups. A univariate linear analysis was performed to investigate the association between prostate volume and other relevant outcomes.

Results: Patients with larger prostates had a higher IPSS score, and therefore, more relevant LUTS at the baseline. They had higher ASA scores (p = 0.015). They also had more catheter days (mean 6.6 days for SNP vs. 7.5 days for LP) (p = 0.041). All oncological outcomes were similar between the groups. Although statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.062), a trend for minor complications in patients with larger prostates, n = 37/186 (19.8%) for the LP group vs. n = 37/314 (11.7%) in the SNP group, was observed. Namely, acute urinary retention and secondary anastomosis insufficiency. Major complications with an SNP (4.4%) and LP (3.7%) (p = 0.708) and readmissions with an SNP (6.25%) and LP (4.2%) (p = 0.814) were infrequent and distributed equally between the groups. In univariate analysis, prostate volume could solely predict a longer console time (p = 0.005).

Conclusions: A higher prostate volume appears to have minimal influence on the perioperative course after RARP. It can prolong catheter days and increase the incidence of minor complications such as acute urinary retention. However, it might predict minor changes in operating time. Yet, prostate volume has less influence on major complications, readmissions, or oncological results.

Keywords: RARP; prostate cancer; prostate volume.

Grants and funding

This research received no external funding.