Catheter-less robotic radical prostatectomy using a custom-made synchronous anastomotic splint and vesical urinary diversion device: report of the initial series and perioperative outcomes

Anesthetic considerations in robotic surgery: a comprehensive review

Recent advancements have led to a rise, in the demand for surgical methods with robot-assisted procedures becoming increasingly popular for addressing the limitations of traditional laparoscopy. However, incorporating surgery involves making changes in the way patients are positioned and logistical planning, which can challenge conventional approaches to providing anesthesia care. Despite these obstacles robotic technology shows potential for bringing about improvements in therapy. Anesthesiologists play a role in ensuring safety and delivering high quality anesthesia care during robotic surgery. Having an understanding of the elements of robotic surgical systems is essential for adjusting anesthesia practices effectively. Keeping up to date with the developments in surgery is key to achieving optimal outcomes for patients. Effective collaboration between teams and anesthesiologists is essential for managing the complexities of anesthesia during surgery. By promoting communication and cooperation across disciplines healthcare professionals can enhance safety and results. In summary while the introduction of surgery presents challenges in anesthesia care it also offers opportunities for innovation and advancement. Anesthesiologists need to embrace these advancements adapt their practices accordingly and engage in education and collaboration to ensure the safe and successful integration of robotic technology, into surgical procedures ultimately improving patient care.

Effect of different catheter pathways on wounds after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis

Prostate cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide and the fifth leading cause of cancer deaths in men. With the rapidly increasing surgical rate of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy, there is still controversy about how to use a urinary catheter post-operatively. Thus, we attempted to compare the post-operative wound-related outcomes through a meta-analysis of urethral catheterisation (UC) versus suprapubic catheterisation (SPC) after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. As of August 2023, the authors conducted systematic searches in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The authors reviewed the relevant literature separately to determine comparisons between SPC and UC treatment after radical prostatectomy. A total of 395 subjects were enrolled in the five trials, met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Data collection and analysis revealed significant differences in catheter bother to patients for surgical trauma (MD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.48, 1.48 p = 0.0001), with SPC causing less catheter bother to patients post-operatively; post-operative catheter-related problems (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 0.03, 326.1 p = 0.61), the POD1 of the post-operative period (MD, - 0.09; 95% CI, -0.75, 0.94 p = 0.83) and the POD3 of the post-operative period (MD, -0.49; 95% CI, -0.99, 0.01 p = 0.06); there was no statistically significant difference in wound pain. Compared with UC, SPC patients had less post-operative catheter distress. Thus, SPC is more beneficial in reducing post-operative wound discomfort in patients. The validity of the results remains to be tested in more and better studies.

Early urinary continence recovery following retzius-sparing robotic-assistant radical prostatectomy with suprapubic catheter: a short-term follow-up outcome

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the recovery of early urinary continence in patients with prostate cancer using a suprapubic catheter during Retzius-sparing robotic-assistant laparoscopic prostatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2018 to January 2019, 223 patients diagnosed with prostate cancer who underwent Retzius-sparing robotic-assistant laparoscopic prostatectomy in Diakonie Klinikum Stuttgart were involved in our study. From January 2018 to June 2018, patients (112 cases) only had an indwelling urinary catheter during Retzius-sparing robotic-assistant laparoscopic prostatectomy, while from July 2018 to January 2019, patients (111 cases) were offered an extra suprapubic catheter during operation. The recovery of early urinary continence of patients was mainly investigated one month later.

RESULTS

The overall early urinary continence rate was 81.61%. Patients with suprapubic catheter had better urinary control results, compared to patients with only indwelling urinary catheter (87.39% vs 75.89%, p = 0.027). In addition, International Prostate Symptom Score and irritative subscore in patients with good urinary control were significantly lower than that in patients with urinary incontinence. Suprapubic catheter insertion (OR 0.395; 95% CI 0.190-0.821) and advanced pathological tumor stage (T3a-T4) (OR 2.061; 95% CI 1.008-4.217) were two independent influencing factors for early urinary continence recovery in patients who underwent Retzius-sparing robotic-assistant laparoscopic prostatectomy through multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Suprapubic catheter insertion may be helpful for early urinary continence recovery in patients with Retzius-sparing Robotic-assistant laparoscopic prostatectomy. Advanced pathological tumor stage (T3a-T4) before Retzius-sparing robotic-assistant laparoscopic prostatectomy might be associated with poor urinary control.

Surgical techniques to improve continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy directly affects urinary continence dynamics with incontinence being a major factor in patients’ quality of life, social and psychological status. In order to help maintain continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), a number of surgical techniques have been described. In the present narrative review, we summarize the surgical techniques that have been applied during RARP and their effects on incontinence rates and time to continence recovery.

Surgical techniques to improve continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy directly affects urinary continence dynamics with incontinence being a major factor in patients' quality of life, social and psychological status. In order to help maintain continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), a number of surgical techniques have been described. In the present narrative review, we summarize the surgical techniques that have been applied during RARP and their effects on incontinence rates and time to continence recovery.

Suprapubic Versus Urethral Catheter for Urinary Drainage After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the evidence regarding the usage of suprapubic tube (SPT) versus indwelling urethral catheter (IUC) after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Available data on the use of SPT for urinary drainage after RARP is somewhat limited mostly because of the variations of study designs and non-standardized outcomes. Although it may provide some mild benefit in terms of catheter-related pain and discomfort, the benefit seems not to be clinically significant. The evidence in the literature so far does not support routine usage of SPT as the primary urinary drainage method after RARP. Further higher-quality studies that can show clinically significant advantages over IUC are still needed to justify its usage.

The comparison of transurethral versus suprapubic catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The transurethral catheter (TUC) or supra-pubic catheter is commonly used after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, the best way of urine drainage after the operation is still controversial.

Methods

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science databases and the reference lists of relevant articles was performed up to July 2019. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies assessing the two techniques.

Results

In total, nine studies (1,121 patients) were eligible, including three RCTs, one prospective and five retrospective studies. After RARP, postoperative pain was less in suprapubic catheter (SPC) group than TC group, both within 3 days [mean difference (MD): -0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.37 to -0.02; P=0.04] and 5 days after operation (MD: -0.96; 95% CI: -1.39 to -0.52; P<0.00001). There was no significant difference between SPC and TUC groups, in operation time (MD: 2.58; 95% CI: -5.82 to 10.97; P=0.55) and at rates of both catheterization-associated complication [odds ratio (OR): 1.05; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64; P=0.83] and long-term urinary incontinence (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12; P=0.13).

Conclusions

Patients in SPC group suffer from less postoperative pain compared with the TUC group. SPC can be a better alternate of TUC.

Pain and discomfort after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparative study between suprapubic cystostomy and urethral catheter as urinary drainage

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate differences in discomfort, complications and functional results after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) according to different urinary drainage: suprapubic tube (SPT) and standard urethral catheter (UC).

METHODS

Prospective, comparative, consecutive, non-randomized study. In all patients with a water-tight anastomosis, no hematuria, obesity, previous suprapubic surgery or history of bladder cancer, a SPT (two-way Foley 14-Fr catheter) was positioned instead of a Foley 18-Fr UC. One week after surgery, an institutional self-compiled questionnaire was administered. The patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of UC or SPT and were compared concerning pain, perioperative results, complications, functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients with UC and 135 with SPT agreed to participate to the study. Median postoperative pain score was 3 (IQR: 2-5) in UC and 3 (IQR: 1-5) in SPT group (P=0.324); urinary drain-related pain scores were 3 (IQR: 1-5) in UC and 1 (IQR: 0-3) in SPT groups (P<0.001); catheter removal related scores were 1 (IQR: 0-3) and 1 (IQR: 1-3) (P=0.317), respectively. Lastly, 17.8% (UC) and 31.1% (SPT) wore a protection (small or medium pad) while the urinary drainage was in place (P=0.061). No differences related to complications were found (P=0.085); 7.9% of patients in UC group and 4.2% in SPT group (P=0.178) used pads one year after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated suprapubic tube to be more comfortable than transurethral catheter after RARP, with a possible advantage concerning anastomotic postoperative problems.

Evaluation of pain and catheter-related bladder discomfort relative to balloon volumes of indwelling urinary catheters: A prospective study

Purpose

To evaluate patients' tolerance to indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) before and after reducing their balloon volumes. IUCs are a source of discomfort or pain.

Materials and Methods

All consecutive patients hospitalized in our department with IUCs were included during the study period with some exclusion. Each patient was his/her own control before and two hours after reduction of the balloon volume (RBV) by half using two types of assessments, a visual analog scale for pain and a catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) symptom questionnaire.

Results

Forty-nine patients were included in our study that completed the assessments. The mean scores for pain before and after RBVs were 2.80 and 2.02, respectively. The difference was significant (p<0.05). The mean grades of the CRBD before and after RBVs were 1.02 and 0.75, respectively. The difference was significant (p<0.05).

Conclusions

A 50% RBV has shown a significant amelioration in tolerating the catheter.

Supra-pubic versus urethral catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: systematic review of current evidence

PURPOSE

To provide latest evidence on the use of suprapubic catheter (SPC) versus urethral catheter (UC) after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic revision of literature was performed up to September 2017 using different search engines (Pubmed, Ovid, Scopus) to identified studies comparing the use of SPC versus standard UC after RARP. Identification and selection of the studies were conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis criteria. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as a summary measure, whereas the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary variables. RR was preferred in cases of a high number of events to avoid overestimation. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model to account for clinical heterogeneity. All statistical analyses were performed using Review manager 5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified and included in this systematic review, namely 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized prospective studies, and one retrospective study. A total of 966 RARP cases were collected for the cumulative analysis. Among them, 492 patients received standard UC and 474 SPC placement after RARP. UC patients had higher baseline PSA (WMD 0.44 ng/ml; p = 0.02). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was found to be significantly lower in patients with SPC at postoperative day 7 (WMD 0.53; 95% CI 0.13-0.93; p = 0.009). Regarding penile pain, a significant difference in favor of the SPC group was found at postoperative day 7 assessment (WMD 1.2; 95% CI 0.82-1.6; p < 0.001). More patients in the SPC group reported "not at all" or "minimal pain" at this time point (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06, 0.44; p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of continence recovery rate at 6-12 weeks between the groups (UC 78.7%, 88.2%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84, 1.01; p = 0.09). Similarly, no differences were found in terms of catheter-related issues (p = 0.17). However, UC patients had lower likelihood of overall complications (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence suggests that the use of SPC can be a viable option for postoperative urine drainage after RARP, as it can translate into decreased postoperative pain without carrying a significant higher risk of catheter-related complications. Further investigation seems to be warranted, ideally within the framework of a multicentre randomized study with standardized analysis of outcomes.

Suprapubic tube versus urethral catheter drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers in the elderly population. The standard treatment is radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, urologists do not have consents on the postoperative urine drainage management (suprapubic tube (ST)/ urethral catheter (UC)). Thus, we try to compare ST drainage to UC drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy regarding to comfort, recovery rate and continence using the method of meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in Dec. 2017 on PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The authors independently reviewed the records to identify studies comparing ST with UC of patients underwent RARP. Meta-analysis was performed using the extracted data from the selected studies.

Results

Seven studies, including 3 RCTs, with a total of 946 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in our meta-analysis. Though there was no significant difference between the ST group and the UC group on postoperative pain (RR1.73, P 0.20), our study showed a significant improvement on bother or discomfort, defined as trouble in hygiene and sleep, caused by catheter when compared two groups at postoperative day (POD) 7 in ST group (RR2.05, P 0.006). There was no significant difference between the ST group and UC group on urinary continence (RR0.98, P 0.74) and emergency department visit (RR0.61, P 0.11). The rates of bladder neck contracture and other complications were very low in both groups.

Conclusion

Compared to UC, ST showed a weak advantage. So it might be a good choice to choose ST over RARP.

Postoperative patient comfort in suprapubic drainage versus transurethral catheterization following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of the type of urinary diversion (suprapubic vs. transurethral catheterization) on patients' postoperative pain after radical prostatectomy, development of bacteriuria and long-term functional results.

METHODS

A randomized, prospective clinical trial was performed including 160 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy after randomization into two groups: intraoperatively, a transurethral catheter (control group) or an additional suprapubic tube (with removal of the transurethral catheter in the morning of postoperative day 1; intervention group) was placed. Primary study endpoint was postoperative pain objectified by the numeric rating scale questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were bacteriuria after catheter removal and functional outcomes after up to 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in demographic and perioperative data. Starting on postoperative day 2, patients in the suprapubic diversion group had significantly less pain on every time point preceding the removal of the catheter compared to the control cohort with a median overall numeric rating score on postoperative day 1-4 of 2.4 points in the transurethral versus 1.3 in the intervention group (p = 0.012). No statistical difference was found in postoperative bacteriuria and complications as well as in functional results, quality of life and incontinence rates after a median follow-up of 22 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Suprapubic drainage in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy shows significantly decreased pain levels during the catheterization period compared to the transurethral diversion without compromising long-term functional results. Intraoperative placement of a suprapubic tube should be discussed as a standard procedure for further improvement of patients' postoperative comfort.

An Assessment of Patient Comfort and Morbidity After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with Suprapubic Tube Versus Urethral Catheter Drainage

OBJECTIVE

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with suprapubic tube (SPT), compared to urethral catheter (UC) drainage, has been proposed to improve patient comfort and recovery. We sought to compare short-term outcomes for pain and morbidity after RALP with SPT vs UC drainage.

METHODS

Between August 2012 and 2014, 159 men underwent a RALP and prospectively completed a questionnaire addressing postoperative pain and satisfaction. Group 1 (n = 94) underwent a RALP by one surgeon who placed a UC and removed it between postoperative day (POD) 7 and 10. Group 2 (n = 65) underwent a RALP by a different surgeon who placed an SPT and UC. On POD 1, the UC was removed. On POD 9, the SPT was capped and removed on POD 11 if the patient was voiding adequately. Preoperative and intraoperative data, complications, questionnaires, and patient-reported morbidity, including unplanned telephone calls and emergency department (ED) visits, were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between groups. One week after surgery, the penile pain score was statistically significantly lower in Group 2 compared to Group 1 (56.9% and 79.8%, respectively, reported minimal-to-moderate pain, p = 0.003). Bladder spasms and overall pain were not significantly higher for Group 1 compared to Group 2 (p > 0.05). When asked "How big a problem has your urine storage device been?," 20.2% of patients in Group 1 reported it as a "moderate-to-big" problem compared to 10.8% in Group 2 (p > 0.05). The number of catheter-related unplanned telephone encounters did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.7), however, although not statistically significant, 4.6% of patients in Group 2 presented to the ED with catheter-related issues (p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

SPT after RALP was associated with less penile pain compared to UC drainage, and modestly better patient satisfaction. There were no significant differences in bladder spasms, overall pain, and patient-reported morbidity between groups.

Modification of Technique for Suprapubic Catheter Placement After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Reduces Catheter-associated Complications

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with urinary drainage using a modified technique for suprapubic catheter (SPC) placement with those undergoing a previously described technique for SPC placement and those with urethral catheter (UC) alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of 225 consecutive patients who underwent RARP by a single surgeon. The most recent patients were contacted via a telephone survey with 86 responses (69%) received.

RESULTS

After RARP, 174 patients had only UC placement (77%) and 51 had an SPC placed (23%). Twelve patients had SPC placement with a 4-mL balloon (SPC-4), with catheter-related complications occurring in four patients (33%). The technique was modified to use SPC with a 10-mL balloon (SPC-10). Only 2 of 39 SPC-10 patients (5%) had catheter-related complications (P = .03 vs SPC-4). Continence rates at 6 weeks were 83% and 82% for UC and SPC, respectively. Based on postoperative survey results using a 10-point scale, overall experience with RARP was rated 8.9 ± 1.7 and 8.7 ± 2.3 for UC and SPC, respectively (P = .63). Mean catheter bother was rated 5.1 ± 3.0 and 4.6 ± 2.9 for UC and SPC, respectively (P = .45).

CONCLUSION

SPC provides a safe option for patients who would prefer not to have UC following RARP, with equivalent perioperative outcomes. Modification of the published technique to place a standard 16F catheter results in fewer catheter-related complications.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: inching toward gold standard

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) offers excellent and lasting oncologic control. Technical refinements in apical dissection, such as the retroapical approach of synchronous urethral transection, and adoption of real-time frozen section analysis of the excised prostate during RARP have substantially reduced positive surgical margin rates, particularly in high-risk disease patients. Furthermore, precision offered by the robotic platform and technical evolution of radical prostatectomy, including enhanced nerve sparing (veil), have led to improved potency and continence outcomes as well as better safety profile in patients undergoing surgical therapy for prostate cancer.

Early removal of urethral catheter with suprapubic tube drainage versus urethral catheter drainage alone after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Retrospective single institution data suggest that postoperative pain after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is decreased by early removal of the urethral catheter with suprapubic tube drainage. In a randomized patient population we determined whether suprapubic tube drainage with early urethral catheter removal would improve postoperative pain compared with urethral catheter drainage alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men with a body mass index of less than 40 kg/m(2) who had newly diagnosed prostate cancer and elected robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were included in analysis. Block randomization by surgeon was used and randomization assignment was done after completing the urethrovesical anastomosis. In patients assigned to suprapubic tube drainage the urethral catheter was removed on postoperative day 1 and all catheters were removed on postoperative day 7. Visual analog pain scale and satisfaction questionnaires were administered on postoperative days 0, 1 and 7.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients were randomized to the urethral catheter vs 29 to the suprapubic tube plus early urethral catheter removal at the time of interim futility analysis. Mean visual analog pain scale scores did not differ between the groups at any time point and a similar percent of patients cited the catheter as the greatest bother with nonsignificant differences in treatment related satisfaction. Complications during postoperative week 1 did not vary between the groups. Based on interim results the trial was terminated due to lack of effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients randomized to suprapubic tube vs urethral catheter drainage for the week after prostatectomy had similar pain, catheter related bother and treatment related satisfaction in the perioperative period. We no longer routinely offer suprapubic tube drainage with early urethral catheter removal at our institution.

Advances in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy over Time

Since the introduction of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), robotics has become increasingly more commonplace in the armamentarium of the urologic surgeon. Robotic utilization has exploded across surgical disciplines well beyond the fields of urology and prostate surgery. The literature detailing technical steps, comparison of large surgical series, and even robotically focused randomized control trials are available for review. RALP, the first robot-assisted surgical procedure to achieve widespread use, has recently become the primary approach for the surgical management of localized prostate cancer. As a result, surgeons are constantly trying to refine and improve upon current technical aspects of the operation. Recent areas of published modifications include bladder neck anastomosis and reconstruction, bladder drainage, nerve sparing approaches and techniques, and perioperative and postoperative management including penile rehabilitation. In this review, we summarize recent advances in perioperative management and surgical technique for RALP.

Impact of tamsulosin on urinary retention following early catheter removal after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To examine the impact of tamsulosin on the rate of acute urinary retention following early catheter removal after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 236 patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer carried out by a single surgeon were enrolled in this randomized study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: treatment with tamsulosin (0.4 mg) from 1 day before to 14 days after surgery (tamsulosin group), or no tamsulosin treatment (control group). The urethral catheter was removed on the fifth postoperative day. The primary end-point was the acute urinary retention rate. Changes in each domain of the International Continence Society male short-form questionnaire and uroflowmetry parameters were secondary end-points.

RESULTS

The primary end-point was assessed in 218 patients (92.4%; n = 109 in each group). It was not assessed in 18 patients because of cystographic leak from the vesicourethral anastomosis. The acute urinary retention rate was lower in the tamsulosin group (7.3%) than in the control group (17.4%, P = 0.018). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified tamsulosin treatment and the operative experience of the surgeon as independent risk factors for acute urinary retention. Tamsulosin-treated patients had a 0.30-fold lower risk of developing acute urinary retention compared with control patients (95% confidence interval 0.12-0.76; P = 0.011). None of the International Continence Society male questionnaire domain scores showed significant changes between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative treatment with tamsulosin in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy reduces the rate of acute urinary retention after early catheter removal, without aggravating urinary incontinence.

All you need to know about urethrovesical anastomotic urinary leakage following radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Radical prostatectomy is a challenging operation demanding a high level of surgical expertise and experience. Urinary leakage at the urethrovesical anastomosis is one of the most common short-term complications of radical prostatectomy, reaching an incidence of 0.3% to 15.4%. In this review we investigate and discuss all matters directly related to urethrovesical anastomotic leak, specifically how to diagnose it properly, how to determine when it is clinically significant and when intervention is required, how to prevent or predict it and, finally, the possible long-term sequelae.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic analysis of the literature searching for English and nonEnglish language publications from a preidentified time frame (1985 to 2011) using primary search databases (PubMed®, Web of Science®). Manual selection was performed by 2 authors and the third reviewed the final common selection. We also created an algorithm for the diagnosis and management of urethrovesical anastomotic leak.

RESULTS

A total of 72 studies were finally selected, including 48 (67%) observational case series, 16 (22.2%) prospective trials, 1 letter to the editor, 1 review and 1 systematic review which was focused only on laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We also found 2 experimental studies performed in animal models and 3 case reports. Of these studies 7 reported results from fewer than 20 patients. No consensus was recorded on a strict definition of urethrovesical anastomotic leak. The factors determining possible definitions included postoperative day of urethrovesical anastomotic leak, amount of extravasation on cystography and the need for intervention. Urethrovesical anastomotic leak should be classified according to the Clavien classification system, depending on severity and the need for intervention. To our knowledge the role of the open, laparoscopic or robotic approach in the incidence of urethrovesical anastomotic leak has not been systematically investigated. Risk factors for urethrovesical anastomotic leak include obesity, prostate size, previous prostatic surgery, type of anastomosis technique, suture number and type, eversion of the mucosa, a difficult anastomosis or an anastomosis under tension, reconstruction of the musculofascial plate, blood loss, intraoperative flush test result and postoperative urinary tract infection. Diagnosis can be determined primarily by establishing the nature of the drain output. Retrograde cystography, computerized tomography cystography, transrectal ultrasound, contrast enhanced ultrasound and excretory urography are the indicated imaging modalities, and are not always necessary. Finally, the development of anastomotic stricture and incontinence due to urethrovesical anastomotic leak are additional complications.

CONCLUSIONS

We gathered all relevant critical information concerning urethrovesical anastomotic leak to encourage standardization in the diagnosis and management of this common complication. Systematic meta-analysis of each debatable issue is required to provide definite answers.

Robotic radical prostatectomy: The new gold standard

Objectives

Open radical prostatectomy (RP) has been the standard and primary treatment for focal prostate cancer. However, in recent years this view has changed, as robot-assisted laparoscopic RP has gained acceptance among urologists. In this review we evaluate the importance and place of robotics in laparoscopic urological surgery, discussing several techniques that are currently being used and potentially new techniques that might be used in the future.

Methods

We systematically reviewed papers published between 1998 and 2011 using the keywords ‘robotic prostatectomy’ ‘gold standard’ and the Medline database. In addition, after selecting relevant reports we searched ‘related citations’ of the documents to find further supporting published papers.

Results

In all, 50 original papers were identified using the search criteria; we also found 28 through ‘related citations’ browsing. Papers were selected according to their relevance to the current topic (i.e. RP, original articles) and incorporated into this review. These papers were used for their information on the advantages of using robotics, as well as innovative ideas being used in the field of robotic urological surgery.

Conclusion

Almost a decade after the first robotic RP many reports show the benefits and advantages of incorporating robotics into urological surgery. Robotic surgery decreases the learning curve necessary for surgeons when compared with laparoscopic techniques. In addition, patients prefer robotics, as the procedure is less invasive, diminishes the duration of hospitalisation and speeds the return to function.

Optimizing radical prostatectomy for the early recovery of urinary continence

Radical prostatectomy remains the gold-standard treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Although cancer control is the primary goal, secondary outcomes such as continence recovery are of great importance to patients. Thus, it is a challenge for prostate cancer surgeons to optimize continence outcomes without compromising oncologic results. Many high-volume surgeons have demonstrated excellent long-term continence rates in their patients, but early continence is variable and less than ideal even in expert hands. A plethora of individual technical maneuvers exist to optimize early recovery of continence, but as yet there is no composite technique that incorporates the relevant anatomic principles of minimizing damage to the urinary sphincters and their nerves, maximizing functional urethral length, creating a secure and watertight vesicourethral anastomosis, providing circumferential fascioligamentous support to the anastomosis and external sphincter, and ameliorating postoperative bladder descent. Our ten-step approach to collating these individual maneuvers into a unified technique could be used by surgeons to obtain the best possible early recovery of urinary control for their patients, without risking their oncologic outcomes.

Long-term follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous suprapubic tube drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP)

Study Type - Therapy (case series). Level of Evidence 4 What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? • Initial reports of percutaneous suprapubic tube (PST) drainage following RARP demonstrated feasibility and short-term safety, while decreasing patient discomfort and utilization of anti-cholinergic medication. • This study demonstrates the long-term safety and efficacy of bladder drainage by PST; splinting the urethrovesical anastomosis is simply not essential if mucosal apposition is ensured.

OBJECTIVES

• To evaluate the long-term safety and functional outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous suprapubic tube (PST) drainage after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

• Between January 2008 and October 2009, 339 patients undergoing RARP by one surgeon experienced in RA surgery (M.M.) had postoperative bladder drainage with PST and a minimum of 1-year follow-up for urinary function. • Functional outcomes were obtained via patient-administered questionnaire. • Complications were captured by exhaustive review of multiple datasets, including our prospective prostate cancer database, claims data, as well as electronic medical and institutional morbidity and mortality records.

RESULTS

• Urinary function assessed by patient-administered questionnaire was analysed at a mean (sd) follow-up of 11.5 (1.7) months; after RARP with PST placement, 293 patients (86.4%) had total urinary control and only nine (2.7%) required >1 pad/day. • In all, 86 patients (25.4%) never wore a pad; the median time to 0-1 pad/day was 2 weeks (interquartile range [IQR] 0,6); median time to total control was 6 weeks (IQR 1,22). • The mean (sd) follow-up for complications was 23.7 (6.1) months. In all, 15 patients (4.4%) had a procedure-specific complication, of which 13 were minor (Clavien Class I/II 3.8%); one patient had a bladder neck contracture. • In all, 16 patients (4.7%) required Foley placement after RARP for gross haematuria (two patients), urinary retention (three), tube malfunction (four) or need for prolonged Foley catheterization (seven).

CONCLUSIONS

• PST placement after RARP is safe and efficacious on long-term follow-up. • Splinting of the urethrovesical anastomosis is not a critical step of RP if a watertight anastomosis and excellent mucosal apposition are achieved.

Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technical modifications in 2009

BACKGROUND

Since we last published our technique of robotic prostatectomy, we have introduced three technical refinements: superveil nerve sparing, bladder drainage with a percutaneous suprapubic tube (PST), and limited node dissection of the obturator and internal iliac nodes in preference to the external iliac nodes in selected patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe selection criteria, to explain the three techniques, and to evaluate functional and oncologic results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Single-institution study of 1151 radical prostatectomies performed from 2006 to 2008 by one surgeon.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

The superveil nerve-sparing technique spares nerves from the 11-o'clock position to the 1-o'clock position. The bladder is drained with a PST rather than a urethral catheter. For low- or intermediate-risk disease, limited lymphadenectomy concentrates on the internal iliac and obturator nodes, excluding the external iliac lymph nodes.

MEASUREMENTS

Erectile function and patient comfort were evaluated using questionnaires administered by a third party. Lymph node yield was quantified by a qualified uropathologist.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

At 6-18 months after surgery, 94% of men who attempted sexual intercourse were successful with a median Sexual Health Inventory For Men (SHIM) score of 18 out of 25. PST bladder drainage resulted in less patient discomfort; visual analog scores were 2 at 2 days after prostatectomy and 0 at 6 days after prostatectomy. The modified lymphadenectomy harvested few overall nodes, but it increased the yield of positive nodes >13-fold in patients with low-risk stratification (6.7% compared with 0.5%).

CONCLUSION

In this single-institution, single-surgeon study, these modifications improved erectile function outcomes, decreased catheter-associated discomfort, and enhanced the detection of positive nodes.

[Oncologic and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy in T3 prostate cancer]

According to current literature, the gold standard treatment for T3 prostate cancer is the combination of radiotherapy and extended hormonotherapy. Clinical staging based on digital rectal examination seems useless nowadays, since 20% of T3 prostate cancer is overevaluated during physical examination. Prostatic MRI is extensively needed to evaluate extraprostatic extension during preoperative work-up. EAU guidelines recommend radical prostatecomy only in selected patients: less than or equal to cT3a, PSA less than 20 ng/ml and biopsy Gleason score less than or equal to 8. Carcinologic control obtained after radical prostatectomy is variable from one series to another, with biochemical free survival rate at 5, 10 and 15 years that range from 45 to 62%, 43 to 51%, and 38 to 49%. Specific survival rates at 5, 10 and 15 years are, respectively, of 84 to 98%, 85 to 91% and 76 to 84%. Surgical margins rate differ from 22 up to 61% corresponding to several operative techniques and surgeon's own experience. Regarding urinary continence, functional outcomes are in line with those of prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Considering erectile dysfunction, rates are linked with the type of surgery, which can be extensive or not. There is no impact on overall or specific survival of neoadjuvant treatments. One current question remains the efficacy of early adjuvant treatment after prostatectomy, especially adjuvant irradiation. Radical prostatectomy can be considered in selected cases as a viable alternative first-line treatment option. However, patients have to be warned that they may undergo complementary treatments during the postoperative course of the disease.

The current status of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a rapidly evolving technique for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. In the United States, over 65% of radical prostatectomies are robot-assisted, although the acceptance of this technology in Europe and the rest of the world has been somewhat slower. This article reviews the current literature on RARP with regard to oncological, continence and potency outcomes-the so-called 'trifecta'. Preliminary data appear to show an advantage of RARP over open prostatectomy, with reduced blood loss, decreased pain, early mobilization, shorter hospital stay and lower margin rates. Most studies show good postoperative continence and potency with RARP; however, this needs to be viewed in the context of the paucity of randomized data available in the literature. There is no definitive evidence to show an advantage over standard laparoscopy, but the fact that this technique has reached parity with laparoscopy within 5 years is encouraging. Finally, evolving techniques of single-port robotic prostatectomy, laser-guided robotics, catheter-free prostatectomy and image-guided robotics are discussed.