A Comprehensive Review of the Current State of Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Salvage Prostatectomy.

Background and objective: Salvage robot assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) is performed for patients with biochemical or biopsy proven, localized prostate cancer recurrences after radiation or ablative therapies. Traditionally, sRARP has been avoided by lower volume surgeons due to technical demand and high complication rates. Post-radiation sRARP outcomes studies exist but remain few in number. With increasing use of whole gland and focal ablative therapies, updates on sRARP in this setting are needed. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of recently reviewed studies on the oncologic outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications after post-radiation and post-ablative sRARP. Tips and tricks are provided to guide surgeons who may perform sRARP.

Materials and methods: We performed a non-systematic literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE for the most relevant articles pertaining to the outlined topics from 2010-2022 without limitation on study design. Only case reports, editorial comments, letters, and manuscripts in non-English languages were excluded. Key Content and Findings: Salvage robotic radical prostatectomy is performed in cases of biochemical recurrence after radiation or ablative therapies. Oncologic outcomes after sRARP are worse compared to primary surgery (pRARP) though improvements have been made with the robotic approach when compared to open salvage prostatectomy. Higher pre-sRARP PSA levels and more advanced pathologic stage portend worse oncologic outcomes. Patients meeting low-risk, EAU-biochemical recurrence criteria have improved oncologic outcomes compared to those with high-risk BCR. While complication rates in sRARP are higher compared to pRARP, Retzius sparing approaches may reduce complication rates, particularly rectal injuries. In comparison to the traditional open approach, sRARP is associated with a lower rate of bladder neck contracture. In terms of functional outcomes, potency rates after sRARP are poor and continence rates are low, though Retzius sparing approaches demonstrate acceptable recovery of urinary continence by 1 year, post-operatively.

Conclusions: Advances in the robotic platform and improvement in robotic experience have resulted in acceptable complication rates after sRARP. However, oncologic and functional outcomes after sRARP in both the post-radiation and post-ablation settings are worse compared to pRARP. Thus, when engaging in shared decision making with patients regarding the initial management of localized prostate cancer, patients should be educated regarding oncologic and functional outcomes and complications in the case of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer that may require sRARP.