Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: introduction of training during our first 50 cases

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon’s experience in 80 cases after 2 years of formal training

Background

To assess the learning curve in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) performed by a single surgeon who had a healthcare career as a surgical first assistant for 2 years in high-volume centers treating > 150 cases per year.

Methods

The records of 80 LRP cases performed between October 2017 and August 2018 by a single surgeon were consecutively divided into four groups (groups A = first 20 cases, B = second 20 cases, C = third 20 cases, and D = last 20 cases). The groups were compared in terms of surgical and functional outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 6 months.

Results

Clinical and surgical stages of the four groups were similar between groups. The operative time (126.8 ± 5.48 min; P = 0.001) and time of removal of the drain (1.65 ± 0.93 days; P = 0.029) were significantly lower in group D; however, hospitalization, catheterization time, and blood loss were similar between groups. The complication rate was low. No patient had a visceral injury, and there were no procedures needed to open conversion. The positive surgical margin (PSM) rates were similar between groups. In terms of continence and potency, all groups were similar at the 6th-month follow-up after surgery.

Conclusions

Our results showed that prior experience in laparoscopic surgery as a surgical first assistant in a high-volume center improves the learning curve and oncological and functional outcomes, and helps to minimize the complication rate

Establishing a teaching unit in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: An Australian experience

Objective:

The aim of this project was to examine the role of surgical mentorship on the perioperative and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) performed by two urologists inexperienced in the procedure.

Methods:

Forty-one (41) consecutive LRP cases were performed for clinically localised prostate cancer between December 2006 and June 2008 at a single centre. The surgical mentor approach was used with an experienced LRP surgeon being present for all cases that were performed by two urologists training in LRP. Data was retrospectively reviewed to assess morbidity and oncological outcomes of patients undergoing LRP by the team of trainees.

Results:

No LRP cases were converted to open and no major intraoperative complications were noted. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 493 ml (range 150–1000 ml) with the mean operative time being 220 minutes (range 100–315 minutes). The overall positive margin rate was only 12% (five out of 41 cases).

Conclusion:

LRP teaching units can be established with appropriate mentor supervision and can result in good oncological outcomes and minimal morbidity that compares favourably to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).