Contemporary Comparison of Open to Robotic Prostatectomy at a Veteran's Affairs Hospital

Patients Regret Their Choice of Therapy Significantly Less Frequently after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy as Opposed to Open Radical Prostatectomy: Patient-Reported Results of the Multicenter Cross-Sectional IMPROVE Study

Patient’s regret (PatR) concerning the choice of therapy represents a crucial endpoint for treatment evaluation after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCA). This study aims to compare PatR following robot-assisted (RARP) and open surgical approach (ORP). A survey comprising perioperative-functional criteria was sent to 1000 patients in 20 German centers at a median of 15 months after RP. Surgery-related items were collected from participating centers. To calculate PatR differences between approaches, a multivariate regressive base model (MVBM) was established incorporating surgical approach and demographic, center-specific, and tumor-specific criteria not primarily affected by surgical approach. An extended model (MVEM) was further adjusted by variables potentially affected by surgical approach. PatR was based on five validated questions ranging 0−100 (cutoff >15 defined as critical PatR). The response rate was 75.0%. After exclusion of patients with laparoscopic RP or stage M1b/c, the study cohort comprised 277/365 ORP/RARP patients. ORP/RARP patients had a median PatR of 15/10 (p < 0.001) and 46.2%/28.1% had a PatR >15, respectively (p < 0.001). Based on the MVBM, RARP patients showed PatR >15 relative 46.8% less frequently (p < 0.001). Consensual decision making regarding surgical approach independently reduced PatR. With the MVEM, the independent impact of both surgical approach and of consensual decision making was confirmed. This study involving centers of different care levels showed significantly lower PatR following RARP.

Challenge and future of liver and pancreatic robotic surgery. Analysis of 64 cases in a specialized unit

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has proven effective in certain surgical procedures. However, in liver and pancreatic surgery (HBP) its use is still rare. The initial experience in HBP robotic surgery of a specialized unit of a tertiary hospital is presented.

METHOD

The results of patients undergoing robotic HBP surgery between April 2018 and October 2020 have been prospectively studied. The data analyzed correspond to demographic data, surgical techniques performed, associated morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

64 patients were operated, corresponding to 35 hepatectomies (major [6.7%], anatomic [52.9%], limited [34.4%], cystectomies [3%] and marsupialization [3%]), 29 pancreatectomies (distal [48.2%], central [6.9%], cephalic [13.8%], enucleations [24.1%], ampullectomies [3.5%] and duodenal resections [3.5%]). In liver surgery the mean operative time was 204.4 min (100-265 min), the median postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale was one (1-4), the mean blood losses 166.7 mL (100-300 mL), there was no conversion and the mean postoperative stay was four days (2-14 days). In pancreatic surgery, the mean operative time was 243.8 min (125-460 min), the median of postoperative complications was two (1-4), blood loss of 202.3 mL (100-500 mL) associated to a conversion rate 17.8% and an average stay of seven days (3-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic HBP surgery is safe and feasible. It is suggested that its use facilitates parenchymal sparing surgery, access to posterior liver segments and anastomosis in pancreatic reconstruction compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Challenge and future of liver and pancreatic robotic surgery. Analysis of 64 cases in a specialized unit

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has proven effective in certain surgical procedures. However, in liver and pancreatic surgery (HBP) its use is still rare. The initial experience in HBP robotic surgery of a specialized unit of a tertiary hospital is presented.

METHOD

The results of patients undergoing robotic HBP surgery between April 2018 and October 2020 have been prospectively studied. The data analyzed correspond to demographic data, surgical techniques performed, associated morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

64 patients were operated, corresponding to 35 hepatectomies (major [6.7%], anatomic [52.9%], limited [34.4%], cystectomies [3%] and marsupialization [3%]), 29 pancreatectomies (distal [48.2%], central [6.9%], cephalic [13.8%], enucleations [24.1%], ampullectomies [3.5%] and duodenal resections [3.5%]). In liver surgery the mean operative time was 204.4 minutes (100-265 min), the median postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale was one (1-4), the mean blood losses 166.7 mL (100-300 mL), there was no conversion and the mean postoperative stay was four days (2-14 days). In pancreatic surgery, the mean operative time was 243.8 minutes (125-460 min), the median of postoperative complications was two (1-4), blood loss of 202.3 mL (100-500 mL) associated to a conversion rate 17.8% and an average stay of seven days (3-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic HBP surgery is safe and feasible. It is suggested that its use facilitates parenchymal sparing surgery, access to posterior liver segments and anastomosis in pancreatic reconstruction compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Comparison of robotic and open radical prostatectomy: Initial experience of a single surgeon

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.

Comparison Between Robotic and Laparoscopic or Open Anastomoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has been increasingly used in fashioning various surgical anastomoses. Our aim was to collect and analyze outcomes related to anastomoses performed using a robotic approach and compare them with those done using laparoscopic or open approaches through meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted for articles comparing robotic with laparoscopic and/or open operations (colectomy, low anterior resection, gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), pancreaticoduodenectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, radical prostatectomy, renal transplant) published up to June 2019 searching Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies containing information about outcomes related to hand-sewn anastomoses were included for meta-analysis. Studies with stapled anastomoses or without relevant information about the anastomotic technique were excluded. We also excluded studies in which the anastomoses were performed extracorporeally in laparoscopic or robotic operations.

RESULTS

We included 83 studies referring to the aforementioned operations (4 randomized controlled and 79 non-randomized, 10 prospective and 69 retrospective) apart from colectomy and low anterior resection. Anastomoses done using robotic instruments provided similar results to those done using laparoscopic or open approach in regards to anastomotic leak or stricture. However, there were lower rates of stenosis in robotic than in laparoscopic RYGB (p=0.01) and in robotic than in open radical prostatectomy (p<0.00001). Moreover, all anastomoses needed more time to be performed using the robotic rather than the open approach in renal transplant (p≤0.001).

CONCLUSION

Robotic anastomoses provide equal outcomes with laparoscopic and open ones in most operations, with a few notable exceptions.

Psychological Impacts of Male Sexual Dysfunction in Pelvic Cancer Survivorship

INTRODUCTION

A common negative sequela of cancer treatment in men is sexual dysfunction, which can have a significant psychological impact and can contribute to feelings of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues. Management of cancer survivors' psychological and mental well-being plays an important role in the treatment and recovery process.

AIM

To identify how sexual dysfunction impacts the lives of male cancer survivors and to provide clinicians with treatment recommendations specific to this patient population.

METHODS

A total of 51 peer-reviewed publications related to sexual dysfunction in male cancer survivors were selected for analysis. Sources were chosen based on relevance to current cancer therapies, causes and psychological impacts of sexual dysfunction, and treatment recommendations for clinicians caring for cancer survivors. PubMed search terms included "sexual dysfunction," "cancer survivorship," and "male cancer survivors."

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Measures of sexual dysfunction were based on cancer survivors reporting inadequate erectile capacity for penetrative sexual intercourse, decreased sensitivity of the genitalia, or inability to enjoy sex.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Sexual dysfunction was present in male cancer survivors from diverse ages, cancer diagnoses, and treatments of cancer. Many of the men surveyed presented with psychological distress resulting from their posttreatment sexual dysfunction. This had a significant negative impact on their sexual self-esteem, body image, and mental health. Sexual and social development was delayed in survivors of childhood cancer. Healthcare practitioners should initiate conversations with patients regarding the potential for sexual dysfunction at the time of cancer diagnosis and throughout treatment and follow-up. Physical symptoms of sexual dysfunction should be treated, whenever possible, using phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors or other interventions, and all cancer survivors presenting with psychological distress related to sexual dysfunction should be offered professional counseling. Twitchell DK, Wittmann DA, Hotaling JM, et al. Psychological Impacts of Male Sexual Dysfunction in Pelvic Cancer Survivorship. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:614-626.