Is previous experience in laparoscopic necessary to perform robotic radical prostatectomy? A comparative study with robotic and the classic open procedure in patients with prostate cancer

Challenges and opportunities in prostate cancer surgery in South America: Insights into robot-assisted radical prostatectomies-A perspective

Background and Aims

Prostate cancer imposes a significant health burden, particularly in South America with its high incidence and mortality rates. This article explores the emergence of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) as a potential solution in the region.

Methods

This study relies on a comprehensive review of relevant literature. The analysis highlights the advantages of RARP, identifies impediments to its implementation, and proposes strategies to overcome these barriers.

Results

RARP demonstrates notable benefits, including improved functional outcomes, reduced complications, and minimized incisions. However, the integration of RARP in South America is hindered by challenges such as regional disparities, financial limitations, and data gaps. Limited healthcare infrastructure and a scarcity of skilled professionals further compound the issues.

Conclusion

Despite its potential, RARP faces obstacles to widespread adoption in South America. Strategic solutions encompassing technology investment, healthcare infrastructure enhancement, and workforce training are imperative. Overcoming these challenges can establish RARP as a crucial tool in managing prostate cancer in the region, ultimately enhancing patient care and treatment outcomes.

Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with preceptor's assistance: the training experience and outcomes in South America

Prostate cancer is currently the second leading cause of cancer deaths in Brazilian men. In 2020, sixty-five thousand new prostate cancer cases were expected in Brazil, and almost 30% of these patients are estimated to be from the northeast region. However, from 75 robotic platforms available in the country, only one is accessible in the state of Ceará since 2015. This study reports the intraoperative, functional, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer performed by robotic surgeons during a training period supervised by a proctor. We also compared these results with the literature reporting the experience of different Brazilian centers. We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data of 58 initial cases of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy at a private Brazilian hospital in Fortaleza, Ceará. The surgeries were performed by two robotic surgeons during the training period under proctor supervision. We reported the epidemiological and intraoperative data, complications, pathological report, functional and oncological outcomes. The median operative time was 180 min. None of the patients needed conversion or blood transfusion. The pathology report described 21.81% of positive surgical margins (16.27% of all pT2 and 45.45% of all pT3 patients). The median follow-up was 40 months. Biochemical recurrence occurred in 21.73%, continence in 92%, and potency in 79.54%. No major complications (Clavien grades III-V) were reported. In our experience, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by surgeons training with proctor's assistance is feasible and safe. The operative time, complication rates, functional and oncological outcomes were satisfactory and compatible with the literature.

Prospective evaluation of vesicourethral anastomosis outcomes in robotic radical prostatectomy during early experience in a university hospital

Purpose:

Robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) presents challenges for the surgeon, especially during the initial learning curve. We aimed to evaluate early and mid-term functional outcomes and complications related to vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA), in patients who underwent RARP, during the initial experience in an academic hospital. We also assessed possible predictors of postoperative incontinence and compared these results with the literature.

Materials and Methods:

We prospectively collected data from consecutive patients that underwent RARP. Patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were included in the analysis for the following outcomes: time to complete VUA, continence and complications related to anastomosis. Nerve-sparing status, age, BMI, EBL, pathological tumor staging, and prostate size were evaluated as possible factors predicting early and midterm continence. Results were compared with current literature.

Results:

Data from 60 patients was assessed. Mean time to complete VUA was 34 minutes, and console time was 247 minutes. Continence in 6 months was 90%. Incidence of urinary leakage was 3.3%, no patients developed bladder neck contracture or postoperative urinary retention. On multivariate analysis, age and pathological staging was associated to 3-month continence status.

Conclusion:

Our data show that, during early experience with RARP in a public university hospital, it is possible to achieve good results regarding continence and other outcomes related to VUA. We also found that age and pathological staging was associated to early continence status.

Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis

No consensus has been attained regarding the utility of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We carried out a network meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis comparing RRP, LRP and RALRP on peri-operative and functional outcome measures. Electronic databases were searched for either randomized clinical trials or cohort studies comparing RALRP either with LRP or RRP in patients with localized PCa. Outcome measures were as follows: overall, pT2 and pT3-positive surgical margins (PSMs); biochemical recurrence (BCR); complication rates; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion rate; continence and potency rates; duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Publication bias, risk of bias and inconsistency were assessed. Inverse heterogeneity model was used for analysis. A total of 45 studies were included for the final analysis. We observed that RALRP and LRP did not differ significantly from RRP with regard to the following outcomes: overall PSM; pT2 and pT3 PSMs; OT; complication rate; continence and potency rates; total blood loss and hospital stay. Duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in RALRP than LRP and RRP while significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion and BCR were observed for both RALRP and LRP in comparison with RRP. To conclude, similar functional, operative and oncologic outcomes were observed for both RALRP and LRP compared to RRP.