To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis and to assess the clinical benefit of prophylactic pelvic drain (PD) placement after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) in patients with localized prostate cancer.
Materials and Methods:
An electronic search of databases, including Scopus, Medline, and EMbase, was conducted for articles that considered postoperative outcomes with PD placement and without PD (no drain) placement after RALP. The primary outcome was rate of symptomatic lymphocele (requiring intervention) and secondary outcomes were complications as described by the Clavien–Dindo classification system. Quality assessment was performed using the Modified Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment.
Results:
Six relevant articles comprising 1783 patients (PD = 1253; ND = 530) were included. Use of PD conferred no difference in symptomatic lymphocoele rate (risk difference 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.007 to 0.027), with an overall incidence of 2.2% (95% CI 0.013–0.032). No difference in low-grade (I–II; risk difference 0.035, 95% CI −0.065 to 0.148) or high-grade (III–V; risk difference −0.003, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.044) complications was observed between PD and ND groups. Low-grade (I–II) complications were 11.8% (95% CI 0–0.42) and 7.3% (95% CI 0–0.26), with similar rates of high-grade (III–V) complications, being 4.1% (95% CI 0.008–0.084) and 4.3% (95% CI 0.007–0.067) for PD and ND groups, respectively.
Conclusion:
PD insertion after RALP with extended PLND did not confer significant benefits in prevention of symptomatic lymphocoele or postoperative complications. Based on these results, PD insertion may be safely omitted in uncomplicated cases after consideration of clinical factors.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HuJC, GuX, LipsitzSR, BarryMJ, D'AmicoAV, WeinbergAC, et al.Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA, 2009; 302:1557–1564.
2.
YaxleyJW, CoughlinGD, ChambersSK, OcchipintiS, SamaratungaH, ZajdlewiczL, et al.Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: Early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet, 2016; 388:1057–1066.
3.
BastoM, SathianathenN, te MarveldeL, RyanS, GoadJ, LawrentschukN, et al.Patterns-of-care and health economic analysis of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Australian public health system. BJU Int, 2016; 117:930–939.
4.
RobertsMJ, PapaN, PereraM, JoshiA, ScottS, BoltonD, et al.Declining use of radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy despite more robotics: National population data over 15 years. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol, 2019. DOI:10.1111/ajco.13158
5.
RobertsMJ, PapaN, PereraM, ScottS, TelokenPE, JoshiA, et al.A contemporary, nationwide analysis of prostate cancer treatment with surgery and radiotherapy. BJU Int, 2019; 124:1–56.
6.
MottetN, BellmuntJ, BollaM, BriersE, CumberbatchMG, De SantisM, et al.EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol, 2017; 71:618–629.
7.
BrigantiA, ChunFK, SaloniaA, SuardiN, GallinaA, Da PozzoLF, et al.Complications and other surgical outcomes associated with extended pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol, 2006; 50:1006–1013.
8.
GhanemS, NamdarianB, ChallacombeB. To drain or not to drain after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy? That is the question. BJU Int, 2018; 121:321–322.
9.
MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, AltmanDG, GroupP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 2009; 6:e1000097.
10.
HigginsJPT, AltmanDG, GøtzschePC, JüniP, MoherD, OxmanAD, et al.The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2011; 343:d5928.
11.
DindoD, DemartinesN, ClavienP-A. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg, 2004; 240:205–213.
12.
SterneJA, HernánMA, ReevesBC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 2016; 355:i4919.
13.
DoiSA, BarendregtJJ, KhanS, ThalibL, WilliamsGM. Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemp Clin Trials, 2015; 45(Pt A):130–138.5.
14.
RobertsMJ, ScottS, HarrisPN, NaberK, WagenlehnerFME, DoiSAR. Comparison of fosfomycin against fluoroquinolones for transrectal prostate biopsy prophylaxis: An individual patient-data meta-analysis. World J Urol, 2018; 36:323–330.
15.
Onitilo AA, Doi SAR, Barendregt JJ. Meta-analysis II. In: Doi SAR WG, editor. Methods of Clinical Epidemiology. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Series on Epidemiology and Public Health, 2013, pp. 253–266.
16.
BennettHY, RobertsMJ, DoiSA, GardinerRA. The global burden of major infectious complications following prostate biopsy. Epidemiol Infect, 2016; 144:1784–1791.
17.
Furuya-KanamoriL, BarendregtJJ, DoiSAR. A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc, 2018; 16:195–203.
18.
SterneJA, SuttonAJ, IoannidisJP, TerrinN, JonesDR, LauJ, et al.Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 2011; 343:d4002.
19.
van der PoelHG, de BlokW, TillierC, van MuilekomE. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Nodal dissection results during the first 440 cases by two surgeons. J Endourol, 2012; 26:1618–1624.
20.
ThomasC, ZiewersS, ThomasA, DotzauerR, BartschG, HaferkampA, et al.Development of symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection is independent of surgical approach: A single-center analysis. Int Urol Nephrol, 2019; 51:633–640.
21.
GandagliaG, De LorenzisE, NovaraG, FossatiN, De GrooteR, DoveyZ, et al.Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and extended pelvic lymph node dissection in patients with locally-advanced prostate cancer. Eur Urol, 2017; 71:249–256.
22.
SharmaS, KimHL, MohlerJL. Routine pelvic drainage not required after open or robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology, 2007; 69:330–333.
23.
ZhumkhawalaA, YuhB, LauC, ChuW, EmtageJ, GellhausP, et al.Prospective randomized trial of pelvic drain placement versus no pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). J Urol, 2017; 197 (4 Suppl 1):e363–e364.
24.
BabaeerA, TuerkI. Symptomatic lymphocele after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy; drain or no drain. Urology, 2013; S104.
25.
ZornKC, KatzMH, BernsteinA, ShikanovSA, BrendlerCB, ZagajaGP, et al.Pelvic lymphadenectomy during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: assessing nodal yield, perioperative outcomes, and complications. Urology, 2009; 74:296–302.
26.
WaldertM, RemziM, KlatteT, KlinglerHC. Floseal reduces the incidence of lymphoceles after lymphadenectomies in laparoscopic and robot-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. J Endourol, 2011; 25:969–973.
27.
YuhBE, RuelNH, MejiaR, NovaraG, WilsonTG. Standardized comparison of robot-assisted limited and extended pelvic lymphadenectomy for prostate cancer. BJU Int, 2013; 112:81–88.
28.
LebeauT, RouprêtM, FerhiK, Chartier-KastlerE, RichardF, BitkerM-O, et al.Assessing the complications of laparoscopic robot-assisted surgery: The case of radical prostatectomy. Surg Endosc, 2011; 25:536–542.
29.
AgarwalPK, SammonJ, BhandariA, DabajaA, DiazM, Dusik-FentonS, et al.Safety profile of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A standardized report of complications in 3317 patients. Eur Urol, 2011; 59:684–698.
30.
FischerB, EngelN, FehrJ-L, JohnH. Complications of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy. World J Urol, 2008; 26:595–602.
31.
NovaraG, FicarraV, D'EliaC, SeccoS, CavalleriS, ArtibaniW. Prospective evaluation with standardised criteria for postoperative complications after robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2010; 57:363–370.
32.
ChenamA, YuhB, ZhumkhawalaA, RuelN, ChuW, LauC, et al.Prospective randomised non-inferiority trial of pelvic drain placement vs no pelvic drain placement after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int, 2018; 121:357–364.
33.
PorcaroDAB, siracusanoPs, bizzottoDl, SebbenDM, CacciamaniDG, LuykDND, et al.Is a drain needed after robotic radical prostatectomy with or without pelvic lymph node dissection? Results of a single center randomized clinical trial. J Endourol. DOI: 10.1089/end.2018.0176.
34.
LeeJY, DiazRR, ChoKS, YuHS, ChungJS, HamWS, et al.Lymphocele after extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A propensity score-matching study. Int J Urol, 2013; 20:1169–1176.
35.
MusserJE, AsselM, GuglielmettiGB, PathakP, SilbersteinJL, SjobergDD, et al.Impact of routine use of surgical drains on incidence of complications with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol, 2014; 28:1333–1337.
36.
KeskinMS, Argun ÖB, ÖbekC, TufekI, TunaMB, MourmourisP, et al.The incidence and sequela of lymphocele formation after robot-assisted extended pelvic lymph node dissection. BJU Int, 2016; 118:127–131.
37.
DanuserH, Di PierroGB, StuckiP, MatteiA. Extended pelvic lymphadenectomy and various radical prostatectomy techniques: Is pelvic drainage necessary?. BJU Int, 2013; 111:963–969.
38.
LeeHJ, KaneCJ. How to minimize lymphoceles and treat clinically symptomatic lymphoceles after radical prostatectomy topical collection on urosurgery. Curr Urol Rep, 2014; 15:445.
39.
ArakiM, ManoharanM, VyasS, NiederAM, SolowayMS. A pelvic drain can often be avoided after radical retropubic prostatectomy: An update in 552 cases. Eur Urol, 2006; 50:1241–1247.
40.
CanesD, CohenMS, TuerkIA. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Omitting a pelvic drain. Int Braz J Urol, 2008; 34:151–158.
41.
NovaraG, FicarraV, RosenRC, ArtibaniW, CostelloA, EasthamJA, et al.Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012; 62:431–452.
42.
GhanemS, NamdarianB, ChallacombeB. To drain or not to drain after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy? That is the question. BJU Int, 2018; 121:321–322.
43.
HeidenreichA, OhlmannCH. [The role of pelvic lymphadenectomy in the therapy of prostate and bladder cancer]. Aktuelle Urol, 2005; 36:219–229.
44.
GurusamyKS, KotiR, DavidsonBR. Routine abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013:Cd006004.
45.
PatsnerB. Closed-suction drainage versus no drainage following radical abdominal hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for stage IB cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol, 1995; 57:232–234.
46.
FongY, BrennanMF, BrownK, HeffernanN, BlumgartLH. Drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection. Am J Surg, 1996; 171:158–162.
47.
MartiniA, GandagliaG, BrigantiA. What is new in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A narrative review. Curr Opin Urol, 2019; 29:14–18.
48.
Benedetti-PaniciP, ManeschiF, CutilloG, D'AndreaG, di PalumboVS, ConteM, et al.A randomized study comparing retroperitoneal drainage with no drainage after lymphadenectomy in gynecologic malignancies. Gynecol Oncol, 1997; 65:478–482.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
