Open, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: optimizing the surgical approach

Comparison of oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes between radical retropubic and radical perineal prostatectomy: A multi-institutional study

Introduction:

To investigate the safety, oncologic, surgical, and functional outcomes of RPP and RRP for localized prostate cancer (Pca), especially focusing on RPP.

Materials and methods:

From March 2005 to January 2021, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 685 patients undergoing RPP ( n = 320) or RRP ( n = 365) for localized Pca. Surgical and functional outcomes, and complications were compared. Oncological outcomes were also compared using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

Results:

A higher biochemical recurrence rate were noted in RRP than in RPP group (28.8% vs 21.6%, respectively; p = 0.03). A local recurrence was detected in a few numbers of patients (4.4%) with no statistically significant differences by surgical groups ( p = 0.71). No significant differences were observed in the cancer-specific survival and the overall survival according to the surgical approach. Positive surgical margins were similar in the two techniques. In comparison to RRP, patients undergoing RPP have less postoperative pain, decreased transfusion rate, and less catheterization time. Complete continence was achieved in 96.9% of the RPP group at 18 and 24 months versus 91.8% and 92.3% in the RRP group at 18 and 24 months, respectively ( p = 0.005 and p = 0.01, respectively). At 18 months of follow-up, the nerve-sparing technique was performed equally between the two groups, the mean of erectile function domain improved more in RPP than RRP (12.71 vs 10.42 respectively, p < 0.001). Medical and surgical complication rates were higher for RRP than RPP.

Conclusions:

RPP showed acceptable oncologic outcomes and excellent functional outcomes when compared to RRP.

Effect of Robot-assisted Surgery on Anesthetic and Perioperative Management for Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy under Combined General and Epidural Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted surgery and pure laparoscopic surgery are available for minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP). The differences in anesthetic management between these two MIRPs under combined general and epidural anesthesia (CGEA) remain unknown. This study therefore aimed to determine the effects of robot-assisted surgery on anesthetic and perioperative management for MIRP under CGEA.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study analyzed data from patients' electronic medical records. Data on demographics, intraoperative variables, postoperative complications, and hospital stays after MIRPs were compared between patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and those treated by pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

RESULTS

There were no differences in background data between the 102 who underwent RALP and 112 who underwent LRP. Anesthesia and surgical times were shorter in the RALP group than in the LRP group. Doses of anesthetics, including intravenous opioids, and epidural ropivacaine, were lower in the RALP group. Although estimated blood loss and volume of colloid infusion were lower in the RALP group, the volume of crystalloid infusion was larger. Intraoperative allogeneic transfusion was not required in either group. There was no difference between groups in the incidences of postoperative cardiopulmonary complications or postoperative nausea and vomiting. Hospital stays after the procedure were shorter in the RALP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robot-assisted surgery required varied consumption of anesthetics and infusion management during MIRP under GCEA. It also shortened postoperative hospital stays, without increasing rates of postoperative complications.

Surgical Management of Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer with Review of Literature and Evolving Evidence

Prostate cancer is the most common solid organ malignancy in men in the USA with an annual incidence of 105 and an annual mortality rate of 19 per 100,000 people. With the advent of PSA screening, the majority of prostate cancer diagnosed is organ confined. Recent studies including the SPCG-4 and PIVOT trials have demonstrated a survival benefit for those undergoing active treatment for localized prostate cancer. The foremost surgical option has been radical prostatectomy (RP). The gold standard has been open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP); however, minimally invasive approaches including laparoscopic and robotic approaches are commonplace and increasing in popularity. We aim to describe the surgical options for the treatment of localized prostate cancer by reviewing the literature. A review of the literature was undertaken using MEDLINE and PubMed. Articles addressing the topic of radical prostatectomy by open, laparoscopic and robotic approaches were selected. Studies comparing the different modalities were also identified. These articles were reviewed for data pertaining to perioperative, oncological and functional outcomes. There is a paucity of randomized studies comparing the three modalities. The published data has demonstrated a benefit in favour of robotically assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) over laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and traditional open RRP in perioperative outcomes. When reviewing the best-reported outcomes for RALP compared to LRP and RRP, operative times are lower (105 vs. 138 vs. 138 min), estimated blood loss rates are lower (111 vs. 200 vs. 300 ml) and blood transfusion rates are lower as in the length of stay (1 vs. 2 vs. 2.3 days) and overall complication rates (4.3 vs. 5 vs. 20%). Similarly, when reviewing functional outcomes, RALP compared to LRP was not inferior. At 12 months, the reported continence was 97 vs. 94 vs. 89% and potency was 94 vs. 77 vs. 90%. In comparative studies, however, these differences did not always meet statistical significance. With respect to oncological outcomes, there was no clear evidence of superiority of one modality over another. RALP is now the most common modality for surgical treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer. Individual series appear to support better perioperative outcomes and perhaps quicker return to functional outcomes. There does not appear to be a clear advantage to date in oncological parameters; however, RALP does not appear to be inferior to either LRP or RRP. It is anticipated that further high quality randomized studies will shed more light on the clinical and statistical significance in the comparison between these modalities.

Dipyridamole reduces penile apoptosis in a rat model of post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction

Purpose:

Despite the nerve-sparing technique, many patients suffer from erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy (RP) due to cavernous nerve injury. The aim of this study was to evaluate dipyridamole as a potential treatment agent of post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction.

Material and methods:

A total of 18 male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into three experimental Groups (SHAM+DMSO, BCNI+DMSO and BCNI+DIP). An animal model of bilateral cavernous nerve crush injury (BCNI) was established to mimic the partial nerve damage during nerve-sparing RP. After creating of BCNI, dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) was administered transperitoneally as a vehicle to SHAM+DMSO and BCNI+DMSO Groups. BCNI+DIP Group received dipyiridamole (10mg/kg/day) as a solution in DMSO for 15 days. Afterwards, rats were evaluated for in vivo erectile response to cavernous nerve stimulation. Penile tissues were also analyzed biochemically for transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) level. Penile corporal apoptosis was determined by TUNEL method.

Results:

Erectile response was decreased in rats with BCNI and there was no significant improvement with dipyridamole treatment. TGF-β1 levels were increased in rats with BCNI and decreased with dipyridamole treatment. Dipyridamole led to reduced penile apoptosis in rats with BCNI and there was no significant difference when compared to sham operated rats.

Conclusions:

Although fifteen-day dipyridamole treatment has failed to improve erectile function in rats with BCNI, the decline in both TGF-β1 levels and apoptotic indices with treatment may be helpful in protecting penile morphology after cavernous nerve injury.

[Anesthetic management of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy]

The authors have an experience in performing of 700 radical prostatectomies by using of daVinci-robot. The main factors determining parameters of operation and anesthesia are presented in the article. The authors give recommendations for optimization of anesthetic management. The main features of patient preparation for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, parameters of anesthesia and postoperative management of patients are presented in the article.

Oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complication rates of transperitoneal robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: single centre's experience

BACKGROUND

We report the operative details and short term oncologic and functional outcome of the first 334 Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy experiences for organ confined prostate cancer

METHODS

From August 2009 to December 2012, details of 334 consecutive patients were retrospectively analyzed. The analyzed parameters included: preoperative, per-operative characteristics, postoperative minor and major complications, positive surgical margin continence, potency, and biochemical progression at the follow-up period.

RESULTS

The classical extrafascial, interfascial, intrafascial and fascia sparing radical prostatectomy were performed in 31, 41, 200, and 62 cases, respectively. The mean operation time was 213.8±90.1minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 116.1±58.9cc during operation. A nerve-sparing procedure was performed bilaterally in 198 (59.3%) cases and unilaterally in 126 (37.7%) cases. The catheter was removed on postoperative day 9, 1±1.9. Surgical margin was positive in 36 (10.7%) patients. The overall, pT2, pT3a and pT3b PSM rates were 8 (2.4%), 12 (3.6%), 16 (4.8%) respectively and PSM and BCR rates were not statistically different among four approach (P>.05). At the follow-up period, the continence rates were 74.4%, 80.4%, 80.5%, and 96.7% (P<.001), and previously potent patients' potency rates were 64.3%, 66.6%, 68.1%, and 74.5% (P>.05), in classic extrafascial, interfascial, intrafascial, and fascia sparing intrafascial prostatectomy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

RARP is a safe and feasible technique in treatment of localized prostate cancer. Fascia sparing approach has better continence rate. This results need to be supported by new prospective, randomized studies.

Robotic surgery is ready for prime time in India: Against the motion

The use of Robotic Surgery as a purported adjunct and aid to Minimal Access Surgery (MAS) is growing in several areas. The acknowledged advantages as also the obvious and hidden disadvantages of Robotic Surgery are highlighted. Survey of literature shows that while Robotic Surgery is “feasible” and the results are “comparable” there is no convincing evidence that it is any better than MAS or even open surgery in most areas. To move “Robotic Surgery is ready for prime time in India” with no less than two dozen robots, many sub-optimally utilized for a population of 1.2 billion seems untenable.

Oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complication rates of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: multicenter experience in Turkey including 1,499 patients

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a rising minimally invasive treatment of localized prostate cancer (PC). We present our multicenter experience of 1,499 consecutive cases with an analysis of complication rates, oncologic, and functional outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From March 2005 through December 2012, details of 1,499 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Transperitoneal approach using a da-Vinci robotic system was used to perform RARP. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative oncologic and functional outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

The mean age was 61.3 years (37-77). Mean PSA level was 8.3 ng/ml. According to D'Amico classification, the percentage of patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease cases were 65.0, 30.1, and 4.8 %, respectively. Mean operative time was 181.9 min. Mean estimated blood loss was 225.4 cc (30-1,250). Positive surgical margin (PSM) was detected in 212 (14.1 %) patients. PSM rates in pT2, pT3, and pT4 stages were 6.1, 37.1, and 100 %, respectively. The overall complication rate due to modified Clavien classification was 6.1 %. Mean follow-up time was 26.7 months. Continence, potency, and biochemical recurrence rates were 88.7, 58.2, and 2.9 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses including high-volume centers, which is the first largest series in Turkey, show that RARP is a safe procedure, has low PSM rates, high continence, and potency rates for the treatment of localized PC at experienced centers.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using modular training programme in a private hospital

The aim of the study was to demonstrate an efficacious robotic fellowship model that balances safety of patients, time efficiency and adequate training, in a private hospital. Sixty-four patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using a 13-step modular training programme in a single private institute. The patients were compared with 64 consecutive patients operated on by the mentoring surgeon immediately prior to the implementation of the programme. The main parameters analysed included console time, total operating time, blood loss, positive surgical margin rate and postoperative complications. There was a marginal difference in mean console time (92.67 vs. 90.41 min; p = 0.02). Statistical difference disappeared when comparing mean total operating time (136.09 vs. 134.14 min; p = 0.16), mean blood loss (165 vs. 172 ml; p = 0.96) and margin positivity (8 vs. 13; p = 0.34). The trainee was able to complete significant numbers of modular training steps whilst maintaining momentum of the operation from the commencement of the fellowship programme. This study demonstrates that a comprehensive modular training programme in complicated robotic procedures could be implemented without compromising patient safety or time efficiency.

Robotic surgery of the liver: Italian experience and review of the literature

Robotic liver resection is a new promising minimally invasive surgical technique not yet validated by level I evidence. During recent years, the application of the laparoscopic approach to liver resection has grown less than other abdominal specialties due to the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopic instruments. Robotics can overcome these limitations above all for complex operations. A review of the literature on major hepatic surgery was conducted on PubMed using selected keywords. Two hundred and thirty-five patients in 17 series were analysed and outcomes such as operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, conversion rate, and costs were described. The most commonly performed procedures were wedge resection and segmentectomy, but the predominance of major hepatectomies performed with robotic surgery is likely due to the superior control achieved by the robotic system.

The conversion and complication rates were 4.2% and 13.4%, respectively. Intracavitary fluid collections and bile leaks were the most frequently occurring morbidities. The mean operation time was 285 min. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 50–280 mL. The mean postoperative hospital stay was four to seven days. Overall survival and long-term outcomes were not reported. Robotic liver surgery in Italy has become a clinical reality that is gaining increasing acceptance; a survey was carried out on robotic surgery, which showed that it is perceived as a significant advantage for operators and a consistent gain for the patient. More than 100 robotic hepatic resections have been performed in Italy where important robotic training schools are active.

Robotic liver surgery is feasible and safe in trained and experienced hands. Further evaluation is required to assess the improvement in outcomes and long-term oncologic follow-up.

Prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer: benefits for patients with highly aggressive prostate cancer

The PSA screening for 25 years in America is the biggest cohort study in a field of public health.27 We should realize not only the significance of the early diagnosis and treatment of PCa, but also the dramatic decrease in PCaMR from 2002 to 2008. The data from the IARC were especially noteworthy.Moreover, the patients with highly aggressive PCa, who account for more than 30% of all PCa patients, could only be diagnosed earlier by PSA screening. The patients would thus gain the opportunity for earlier treatment and would have a prolonged, higher quality life-span. However, the complications of interventional treatments, including biopsy,radical prostatectomy and/or radiation therapy,will become more avoidable in the near future.According to the supporting evidence for the decrease in PCa mortality in PSA screening, we strongly hope that the USPSTF changes the 'D' recommendation for PSA screening.

Optimizing postoperative sexual function after radical prostatectomy

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is one of the complications associated with pelvic surgery. The significance of ED as a complication following pelvic surgery, especially radical prostatectomy (RP), lies in the negative impact that it has on patients' sexual and overall life. In the literature, rates of ED following RP range from 25% to 100%. Such variety is associated with pelvic dissection and conservation of neurovascular structures. Another important factor impacting on postoperative ED is the preoperative erectile function of the patient. Advances in the knowledge of pelvic anatomy and pathological mechanisms led to a refinement of pelvic surgical techniques, with attention to the main structures that if damaged compromise erectile function. These improvements resulted in lower postoperative ED rates and better erectile recovery, especially in patients undergoing RP. Furthermore, surgery alone is not sufficient to prevent this complication, and thus, several medical strategies have been tested with the aim of maximizing erectile function recovery. Indeed it seems that prevention of postoperative ED must be addressed by a multimodal approach. The aim of this review is to give a picture of recent knowledge, novel techniques and therapeutic approaches in order to reach the best combination of treatments to reduce the rate of ED after pelvic surgery.

Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery is growing rapidly and there is an increasing need for a structured approach to train future robotic surgeons.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature on training and learning strategies for robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Journal of Robotic Surgery was performed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included articles concerning training, learning, education and teaching of robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery in any specialism.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected articles to be included. We categorised the included articles into: training modalities, learning curve, training future surgeons, curriculum design and implementation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 114 full text articles. Training modalities such as didactic training, skills training (dry lab, virtual reality, animal or cadaver models), case observation, bedside assisting, proctoring and the mentoring console can be used for training in robotic assisted laparoscopic surgery. Several training programmes in general and specific programmes designed for residents, fellows and surgeons are described in the literature. We provide guidelines for development of a structured training programme.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Robotic surgical training consists of system training and procedural training. System training should be formally organised and should be competence based, instead of time based. Virtual reality training will play an import role in the near future. Procedural training should be organised in a stepwise approach with objective assessment of each step. This review aims to facilitate and improve the implementation of structured robotic surgical training programmes.

Imaging guidance in minimally invasive prostatectomy

Minimally invasive prostatectomy, such as laparoscopic and robot-assisted prostatectomy, has become more popular, with similar short-term outcomes as open radical retropubic prostatectomy series. The purpose of this article is to review different imaging modalities that have been developed with a goal of further improving the surgical outcomes in minimally invasive prostatectomy.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial experience with first 112 cases

In this study we report our initial robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) experience for organ-confined prostate cancer with the first 112 cases between August 2009 and January 2011. The mean age was 61 (46-76) years. Gleason scores ranged between 4 and 9, and the mean prostate volume was 38.7 (15-115) ml. The mean follow-up time was 8.1 (1-18) months. The mean operative time was 174.7 (75-360) min, and the mean estimated blood loss was 141 (60-800) ml. A nerve-sparing procedure was performed bilaterally in 79 cases and unilaterally in 15 cases. All the complications seen (8 out of 112 patients, 7.1%) were grade 1 and 2 according to the Clavien classsification system. Postoperatively, five (4.4%) patients needed transfusion. Mean drain extraction time was 3.2 (2-15) days and mean hospital stay was 4 (2-18) days. The catheter was removed on postoperative day 8.5 (6-20). Surgical margin was positive in 13 (11.6%) patients. Forty-nine patients have 6 months and 30 patients have 12 months follow-up. The continence rate were 29.4, 64.2, 84.2, 91.1 and 96.6% immediately after catheter removal and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. No anastomotic stricture or urinary retention was seen in the follow-up period. RALRP is a safe and feasible technique in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Our initial experience with this procedure shows promising short-term outcomes.

Minimum incision endoscopic radical prostatectomy: clinical and oncological outcomes at a single institute

AIMS

The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical and oncological outcomes of prostatectomy patients undergoing minimum incision endoscopic radical prostatectomy (MIE-RP).

METHODS

Between September 2005 and May 2010, 541 patients underwent MIE-RP with bilateral lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer at Hirosaki University Hospital. The present retrospective study enrolled 375 patients who had not received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy. MIE-RP was performed through a 6-cm suprapubic midline incision. A 30° laparoscope was conveniently positioned on the head side of the patient for precise observation and monitoring.

RESULTS

The median operating time was 119 min, and the estimated blood loss was 900 ml. The most frequent perioperative complication was leakage from the vesicourethral anastomosis (6.7%), and rectal injury occurred in 1.0%. Overall, 31.2% of the patients had a positive surgical margin, including 11.1% with pT2, 52.9% with pT3 and 100% with pT4 diseases. The post-operative median follow-up period was 40.5 months (range, 2-56.5 months). The 5-year PSA-free survival rate was 71.6%. In multivariate analysis, high-risk patients (according to the D'Amico risk criteria), pathological T stage and positive surgical margins were identified as independent predictors of PSA-free survival. The limitations of this study included a retrospective study, relatively short follow-up period and single-institution nature of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

MIE-RP is a safe and minimally invasive procedure that may represent a reliable alternative to laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RP.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: The European and US Experience

Open radical prostatectomy (ORP) is the reference standard for the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. With wider availability of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy techniques, there is a debate regarding the standard treatment of the management of localized prostate cancer. Therefore, we reviewed the current status of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) as compared with ORP. Because no prospective, randomized trials comparing the different techniques have been performed, outcomes must be assessed from published series by centers that focus on ORP, LRP, and RALRP. Aside from reducing the amount of blood loss, current data suggest that the most significant outcomes (cure, continence, and potency) are no better with LRP or RALRP than with conventional ORP. Therefore, in experienced hands, ORP remains the gold standard procedure. However, there is a trend toward consistently better outcomes following RALRP in comparison with LRP. In the end, individual patient outcomes can be maximized by choosing the best modality based on the patient's comorbid medical conditions, cancer characteristics, and surgeon experience. Future studies are needed to further investigate long-term cancer control as well as functional outcomes for RALRP series.

Laparoscopic splenectomy: conventional versus robotic approach--a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic splenectomy is accepted as a safe approach in the surgical treatment of blood disorders worldwide. Compared with the laparotomic technique, it is associated with a lower risk of intraoperative bleeding, less postoperative pain, and faster discharge times. The advent of robotic surgery (RS) has changed the concept of minimally invasive surgery because, in addition to allowing a three-dimensional view, it permits greater freedom of movement and higher levels of accuracy than laparoscopic surgery (LS). The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate whether RS presents advantages over LS in spleen surgery.

METHODS

In two Surgical Units with experience in laparoscopic splenectomy, over a 7-year period, two groups of 45 patients underwent LS and RS. The two groups were well matched for demographic characteristics, indications, and spleen size.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were found regarding intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate to laparotomy, food intake, drain removal, postoperative complications, and median time to discharge. On the contrary, statistically increased differences were observed in median operative time and costs. In both groups, the transfusion and mortality rate was 0%. At the 6-month follow-up no surgical complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RS offers a three-dimensional view, greater freedom of movement, and higher levels of accuracy, it is associated with longer operative times and higher costs. It can consequently be concluded that with the intrinsic limits of the study design used, at the current time, RS does not have any significant advantage over LS in splenectomy.

Contemporary radical prostatectomy

Purpose. Patients diagnosed with clinically localized prostate cancer have more surgical treatment options than in the past. This paper focuses on the procedures' oncological or functional outcomes and perioperative morbidities of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Materials and Methods. A MEDLINE/PubMed search of the literature on radical prostatectomy and other new management options was performed. Results. Compared to the open procedures, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has no confirmed significant difference in most literatures besides less blood loss and blood transfusion. Nerve sparing is a safe means of preserving potency on well-selected patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Positive surgical margin rates of radical prostatectomy affect the recurrence and survival of prostate cancer. The urinary and sexual function outcomes have been vastly improved. Neoadjuvant treatment only affects the rate of positive surgical margin. Adjuvant therapy can delay and reduce the risk of recurrence and improve the survival of the high risk prostate cancer. Conclusions. For the majority of patients with organ-confined prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy remains a most effective approach. Radical perineal prostatectomy remains a viable approach for patients with morbid obesity, prior pelvic surgery, or prior pelvic radiation. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) has become popular among surgeons but has not yet become the firmly established standard of care. Long-term data have confirmed the efficacy of radical retropubic prostatectomy with disease control rates and cancer-specific survival rates.