ABSTRACT
Objective: To describe the technical aspects and outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) following abandoned open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Patients and Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent RARP following abandonment of ORP between 2016 and 2020. RARP was undertaken by two highly experienced robotic surgeons. Analysis of patient and operative characteristics, outcomes, and reasons for abandonment of ORP were described. Results: Six patients were included for analysis with a median age of 63.5 years [50.3-67.5]. The median body mass index (BMI) was 34.7 [27.8-36.2]. All patients had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Small prostate and deep pelvis were given as reasons for abandoning ORP in five cases (83.3%), with four of these also attributing increased BMI as a factor. Extensive mesh from previous bilateral inguinal hernia repair was cited as the reason for abandonment in the remaining patient. One patient had commenced androgen deprivation therapy following abandoned ORP. Extensive retropubic adhesions were noted at the time of RARP in five of six patients, with intraoperative complication of small bladder lacerations encountered in the patient with prior mesh hernia repair. The median time from abandoned ORP to RARP was 128 days [40-216]. Median operating time was 160 minutes [139-190] and estimated blood loss was 225 mL [138-375]. Negative margins were obtained in four of six cases, with further salvage treatment being required in one case at a median follow-up duration of 10.5 months [6.5-25.3]. Conclusion: Abandonment of ORP is an uncommonly reported event, however, in this small case series, we demonstrate that, in the hands of experienced surgeons, RARP is a safe and technically feasible alternative in such cases. Increased BMI, small prostate size and pelvic anatomical constraints appear to be common catalysts for abandonment of open surgery in this cohort. Identifying these high-risk patients early and considering referral to robotic centers may be preferred.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Social isolation and loneliness have been associated with ill health and are common in the developed world. A clear understanding of their implications for morbidity and mortality is needed to gauge the extent of the associated public health challenge and the potential benefit of intervention. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of systematic reviews (systematic overview) was undertaken to determine the wider consequences of social isolation and loneliness, identify any differences between the two, determine differences from findings of non-systematic reviews and to clarify the direction of causality. METHODS: Eight databases were searched from 1950 to 2016 for English language reviews covering social isolation and loneliness but not solely social support. Suitability for inclusion was determined by two or more reviewers, the methodological quality of included systematic reviews assessed using the a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist and the quality of evidence within these reviews using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) approach. Non-systematic reviews were sought for a comparison of findings but not included in the primary narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Forty systematic reviews of mainly observational studies were identified, largely from the developed world. Meta-analyses have identified a significant association between social isolation and loneliness with increased all-cause mortality and social isolation with cardiovascular disease. Narrative systematic reviews suggest associations with poorer mental health outcomes, with less strong evidence for behavioural and other physical health outcomes. No reviews were identified for wider socio-economic or developmental outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic overview highlights that there is consistent evidence linking social isolation and loneliness to worse cardiovascular and mental health outcomes. The role of social isolation and loneliness in other conditions and their socio-economic consequences is less clear. More research is needed on associations with cancer, health behaviours, and the impact across the life course and wider socio-economic consequences. Policy makers and health and local government commissioners should consider social isolation and loneliness as important upstream factors impacting on morbidity and mortality due to their effects on cardiovascular and mental health. Prevention strategies should therefore be developed across the public and voluntary sectors, using an asset-based approach.
