-
BJUI Compass Nov 2020To describe the technical aspects and outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) following abandoned open radical prostatectomy (ORP).
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.
PubMed: 35475212
DOI: 10.1002/bco2.34 -
World Journal of Urology Jul 2022We aimed to report the morbidity profile of salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) after radiotherapy failure and assess the impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on...
PURPOSE
We aimed to report the morbidity profile of salvage radical prostatectomy (SRP) after radiotherapy failure and assess the impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on postoperative complications and functional outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Between 1985 and 2019, a total of 293 patients underwent SRP; 232 underwent open SRP; and 61 underwent laparoscopic SRP with or without robotic assistance. Complications were recorded and classified into standardized categories per the Clavien-Dindo classification.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine patients (10%) experienced grade 3 complications within 30 days, 22 (9.5%) after open and 7 (11%) after MIS (p = 0.6). Between 30 and 90 days after surgery, 7.3% of patients in the open group and 10% in the MIS group had grade 3 complications (p = 0.5). The most common complication was bladder neck contracture (BNC), representing 40% of the 30-90 day complications. Within one year of SRP, 81 patients (31%, 95% CI 25%, 37%) developed BNC; we saw non-significant lower rates in MIS (25 vs 32%; p = 0.4). Functional outcomes were poor after SRP and showed no difference between open and MIS groups for urinary continence (16 vs 18%, p = 0.7) and erectile function (7 vs 13%, p = 0.4). 5 year cancer-specific survival and overall survival was 95% and 88% for the entire cohort, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
Our outcomes suggest poor functional recovery after SRP, regardless of the operative approach. Currently there is no evidence favoring the use of open or MIS approach. Further studies are required to ensure comparable outcomes between these approaches.
Topics: Humans; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Morbidity; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Salvage Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35596018
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04031-1 -
Translational Andrology and Urology Apr 2020Several studies have assessed the safety and feasibility of single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using different and custom built robotic-assisted... (Review)
Review
Several studies have assessed the safety and feasibility of single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using different and custom built robotic-assisted technology. In part due to the non-standardized nature of these approaches, single site robotic prostatectomy has not been widely adopted. With the recent approval of the da Vinci (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale CA) Single Port (SP) platform, there has been a renewed interest in single site robotic-assisted prostatectomy and several institutions have begun reporting their initial experiences with this technique. In this systematic review, we sought to assess and summarize the literature regarding patient outcomes for single site robotic-assisted prostatectomy and evaluate its role in surgical treatment of prostate cancer. This systematic review was structured using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies describing the use of any robotic platform, including da Vinci Si, Xi or SP platforms for robotic single-port or single site radical prostatectomy between 2000 and July 15, 2019 were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Studies were excluded if they included combined cases with other organ resection, represented use in a non-clinical setting (such as a cadaveric model), or described results for a simple prostatectomy technique. Data was extracted by two authors with concerns resolved by consensus. Primary outcomes were mean operative times, estimated blood loss (mL), and hospital length of stay (days). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative conversion to open surgery, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. Variables of interest included sample size (n), mean age (years), mean prostate size (mL), prostate specific antigen (PSA, ng/mL), Gleason score, clinical and pathological TNM staging [American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC)], lymph nodes (n) and perioperative complications as available. A total of 217 studies were reviewed by title and abstract, with 28 selected for full-text review; ultimately, 12 studies were included, with available data from 145 patients. Primary outcomes and preoperative characteristics varied greatly amongst patients and across studies. One patient (0.7%) required conversion to a multi-port approach and there were no conversions to an open technique. No intraoperative complications were reported, and no Clavien grade III or greater postoperative complications have been described in the initial 81 radical prostatectomies performed with the SP platform. Single Port techniques appear to represent a safe and feasible approach for performing the minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. The current available literature on the single port radical prostatectomy is weak and consists of single center studies with small sample sizes, short-term follow up and limited functional data. More rigorous multi-center trials with standardized metrics for reporting functional outcomes as well as long-term cancer specific survival are necessary to validate these initial studies.
PubMed: 32420205
DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.11.05 -
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Dec 2020Prostatectomy has been widely accepted as a treatment option for prostate cancer and can be performed via an open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach. The outcomes... (Review)
Review
Prostatectomy has been widely accepted as a treatment option for prostate cancer and can be performed via an open, laparoscopic, and robotic approach. The outcomes following prostatectomy are primarily sub-grouped into oncological and functional outcomes. Oncological outcomes have been comparable in the above three surgical modalities. However, the robotic platform seems to have a better functional outcome compared to open prostatectomy. The data on the outcome of the laparoscopic approach is scarce and is not widely performed due to technical difficulty. With experience continence outcomes have reached a plateau in many robotic series, however, the potency outcome is the real Achilles tendon of this procedure. Many factors influence potency outcomes but the amount and quality of nerve-sparing is one factor that is under a surgeon's control and it improves with experience.
PubMed: 33299276
DOI: 10.1007/s13193-020-01125-3 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Surgical treatment is important for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) management, but there are few reviews of the risks of reoperation. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
Surgical treatment is important for male lower urinary tract symptom (LUTS) management, but there are few reviews of the risks of reoperation.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically evaluate the current evidence regarding the reoperation rates of surgical treatment for LUTS in accordance with current recommendations and guidelines.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
Eligible studies published up to July 2023, were searched for in the PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA) databases. STATA (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) software was used to conduct the meta-analysis. Random-effects models were used to calculate the pooled incidences (PIs) of reoperation and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
A total of 119 studies with 130,106 patients were included. The reoperation rate of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 4.0%, 5.0%, 6.0%, and 7.7%, respectively. The reoperation rate of plasma kinetic loop resection of the prostate (PKRP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.5%, 3.6%, 5.7%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.4%, 3.3%, 5.4%, and 6.6%, respectively. The reoperation rate of photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 3.3%, 4.1%, 6.7%, and 7.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of surgery with AquaBeam at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 2.6%, 3.1%, 3.0%, and 4.1%, respectively. The reoperation rate of prostatic artery embolization (PAE) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 12.2%, 20.0%, 26.4%, and 23.8%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT) at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years was 9.9%, 19.9%, 23.3%, and 31.2%, respectively. The reoperation rate of transurethral incision of the prostate (TUIP) at 5 years was 13.4%. The reoperation rate of open prostatectomy (OP) at 1 and 5 years was 1.3% and 4.4%, respectively. The reoperation rate of thulium laser enucleation of the prostate (ThuLEP) at 1, 2, and 5 years was 3.7%, 7.7%, and 8.4%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our results summarized the reoperation rates of 10 surgical procedures over follow-up durations of 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, which could provide reference for urologists and LUTS patients.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023445780.
Topics: United States; Humans; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Prostate; Reoperation; Embolization, Therapeutic; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
PubMed: 38027158
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1287212 -
The Canadian Journal of Urology Aug 2021INTRODUCTION Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with mechanical tissue morcellation is one of the most effective surgical modalities for the treatment of...
UNLABELLED
INTRODUCTION Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with mechanical tissue morcellation is one of the most effective surgical modalities for the treatment of symptomatic BPH. HoLEP has many advantages over the historical gold standards open prostatectomy (OP) and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). HoLEP is an AUA guideline endorsed surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), independent of prostate size.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We provide a detailed presentation of our experience in performing HoLEP in a teaching university hospital, with an emphasis on the surgical technique and its evolution.
RESULTS
HoLEP is an efficient and durable procedure, although it is very equipment sensitive and has a relatively long learning curve. HoLEP can be performed by several surgical approaches that can be used according to the specific anatomy of the patient. Advances in laser technology, endoscopic morcellators, and surgical technique has improved the HoLEP procedure in efficiency, hemostasis, and safety.
CONCLUSIONS
The HoLEP procedure, first introduced in 1998, has undergone significant changes including advancements in laser technology, endoscopic morcellation devices, and modifications to the surgical technique. These advancements have made HoLEP a more effective, more efficient, easier to perform, and easier to learn technique for the surgical management of BPH. The modified 2-lobe and the en-bloc techniques are a natural progression from the classic 3-lobe technique.
Topics: Holmium; Humans; Laser Therapy; Lasers, Solid-State; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34453423
DOI: No ID Found -
World Journal of Urology Jan 2021Open simple prostatectomy (OSP) is a standard surgical technique for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate size larger than 80 ml. As a minimally... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
PURPOSE
Open simple prostatectomy (OSP) is a standard surgical technique for patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia with prostate size larger than 80 ml. As a minimally invasive approach, robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) emerged as a feasible surgical alternative. Currently, there are no definite recommendations for the standard use of RASP. Therefore, we aimed at investigating various clinical outcomes comparing RASP with OSP.
METHODS
In this retrospective single-center study, we evaluated clinical data from 103 RASP and 31 OSP patients. Both cohorts were compared regarding different clinical characteristics with and without propensity score matching. To detect independent predictive factors for clinical outcomes, multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy patients demonstrated a lower estimated blood loss and need for postoperative blood transfusions as well as less postoperative complications. OSP had a shorter operative time (125 min vs. 182 min) longer hospital stay (11 days vs. 9 days) and longer time to catheter removal (8 days vs. 6 days). In the multivariate analysis, RASP was identified as an independent predictor for longer operative time, lower estimated blood loss, shorter length of hospital stay, shorter time to catheter removal, less postoperative complications and blood transfusions.
CONCLUSION
Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy is a safe alternative to OSP with less perioperative and postoperative morbidity. Whether OSP (shorter operative time) or RASP (shorter length of hospital stay) has a more favorable economic impact depends on the particular conditions of different health care systems. Further prospective comparative research is warranted to define the value of RASP in the current surgical management of benign prostatic hyperplasia.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32222811
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03168-1 -
The Journal of Urology Jan 2022Our goal was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in a multicenter study. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
PURPOSE
Our goal was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in a multicenter study.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We evaluated men with localized prostate cancer at 11 high-volume academic medical centers in the United States from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and the PROST-QA/RP2 cohorts (2010-2013) with a pre-specified goal of comparing RALP (549) and ORP (545). We measured longitudinal patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at pre-treatment and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 months, and pathological and perioperative outcomes/complications.
RESULTS
Demographics, cancer characteristics, and margin status were similar between surgical approaches. ORP subjects were more likely to undergo lymphadenectomy (89% vs 47%; p <0.01) and nerve sparing (94% vs 89%; p <0.01). RALP vs ORP subjects experienced less mean intraoperative blood loss (192 vs 805 mL; p <0.01), shorter mean hospital stay (1.6 vs 2.1 days; p <0.01), and fewer blood transfusions (1% vs 4%; p <0.01), wound infections (2% vs 4%; p=0.02), other infections (1% vs 4%; p <0.01), deep venous thromboses (0.5% vs 2%; p=0.04), and bladder neck contractures requiring dilation (1.6% vs 8.3%; p <0.01). RALP subjects reported less pain (p=0.04), less activity interference (p <0.01) and higher incision satisfaction (p <0.01). Surgical approach (RALP vs ORP) was not a significant predictor of longitudinal HRQOL change in any HRQOL domain.
CONCLUSIONS
In high-volume academic centers, RALP and ORP patients may expect similar long-term HRQOL outcomes. Overall, RALP patients have less pain, shorter hospital stays, and fewer post-surgical complications such as blood transfusions, infections, deep venous thromboses, and bladder neck contractures.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34433304
DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000002176 -
Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 2021In this study, we aimed to make a comprehensive comparison of the first hundred robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy...
OBJECTIVE
In this study, we aimed to make a comprehensive comparison of the first hundred robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) cases of a single surgeon in a high-volume center.
METHODS
Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data were collected retrospectively. Perioperative, oncological data and functional results in the first year were compared between the two groups. There were 204 RARPs between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2019, and 755 RRPs between April 1, 2007 and December 31, 2019.
RESULTS
While the operation time was in favor of the open group (117 vs 188 min, p<0.001), the estimated blood loss (328 vs 150 ml, p<0.001), blood transfusion rate (12 vs 2, p=0.021), and re-operation rate (6 vs 0, p=0.001) were in favor of the robotic group. Mean length of hospital stay (5.4 vs 3.1, p<0.001), urine leak rate (11 vs 2, p=0.033), complication rate (37 vs 16, p=0.018), and the 12th month continence rate (67 vs 85, p=0.002) were better in the robotic group.
CONCLUSIONS
RARP may provide better perioperative outcomes and lower complication rates after the surgeon factor is eliminated in the early period. Since our case group includes the initial 100 patients, studies with larger patient groups with longer follow-up are needed to adapt these early results to general outcomes.
PubMed: 33437271
DOI: 10.12669/pjms.37.1.2719 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jul 2022The initial phases of robotic surgical skills acquisition are associated with poor technical performance, such as low knot-tensile strength (KTS). Transcranial... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
The initial phases of robotic surgical skills acquisition are associated with poor technical performance, such as low knot-tensile strength (KTS). Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) can improve force and accuracy in motor tasks but research in surgery is limited to open and laparoscopic tasks in students. More recently, robotic surgery has gained traction and is now the most common approach for certain procedures (e.g. prostatectomy). Early-phase robotic suturing performance is dependent on prefrontal cortex (PFC) activation, and this study aimed to determine whether performance can be improved with prefrontal tDCS.
METHODS
Fifteen surgical residents were randomized to either active then sham tDCS or sham then active tDCS, in two counterbalanced sessions in a double-blind crossover study. Within each session, participants performed a robotic suturing task repeated in three blocks: pre-, intra- and post-tDCS. During the intra-tDCS block, participants were randomized to either active tDCS (2 mA for 15 min) to the PFC or sham tDCS. Primary outcome measures of technical quality included KTS and error scores.
RESULTS
Significantly faster completion times were observed longitudinally, regardless of active (p < 0.001) or sham stimulation (p < 0.001). KTS was greater following active compared to sham stimulation (median: active = 44.35 N vs. sham = 27.12 N, p < 0.001). A significant reduction in error scores from "pre-" to "post-" (p = 0.029) were only observed in the active group.
CONCLUSION
tDCS could reduce error and enhance KTS during robotic suturing and warrants further exploration as an adjunct to robotic surgical training.
Topics: Cross-Over Studies; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Male; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Robotics; Surgeons; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 34724587
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08823-1