Laparoscopic single port radical prostatectomy in the 2020: Why not? Our experience

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the feasibility, safety and advantages of Laparo-Endoscopic Single-site Surgery radical prostatectomy (LESS-RP) based on our personal experience.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Details of 520 patients were retrospectively analyzed, from 2009 to 2019. Extraperitoneal approach, with only two accesses (2.5 cm and 5 mm respectively) was used to perform radical prostatectomy. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative oncologic and functional outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

The mean age was 66.6 ± 5.6 years. Mean PSA level was 9 ± 3.5 ng/ml. According to D'Amico classification, the percentage of patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease cases were 116 (22.4%), 275 (52.8%), and 129 (24.8%) respectively. Mean operative time was 156 ± 43 min. Mean estimated blood loss was 214 ± 93 ml. Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were detected in 110 (21.2%) patients. PSM rates in pT2 and pT3 stages were 20.1% and 22.9%, respectively. The overall complication rate was 9.2%, based on the modified Clavien classification. The 12 months continence and potency rates were 90.9% and 49.1%, respectively. The biochemical recurrence rate was 6.8%, at the median follow-up time of 26.7 months (IQR 12-32).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses show that LESS-RP is a safe procedure, if performed by surgeons with adequate experience and skills. Unlike the classic laparoscopic prostatectomy, this technique allows better aesthetic and psychological results, reduced postoperative pain, and a faster return to normal daily activity with the same functional and oncological results.

Robotic nurse duties in the urology operative room: 11 years of experience

The robotic nurse plays an essential role in a successful robotic surgery. As part of the robotic surgical team, the robotic nurse must demonstrate a high level of professional knowledge, and be an expert in robotic technology and dealing with robotic malfunctions. Each one of the robotic nursing team “nurse coordinator, scrub-nurse and circulating-nurse” has a certain job description to ensure maximum patient's safety and robotic surgical efficiency. Well-structured training programs should be offered to the robotic nurse to be well prepared, feel confident, and maintain high-quality of care.

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy has lower biochemical recurrence than laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To assess the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Materials and Methods

Existing systematic reviews were updated to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RARP. Electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, Kmbase, and others, were searched through July 2014. The quality of the selected systematic reviews was assessed by using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-Amstar) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.2 (Cochrane Community) and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0 (CMA; Biostat). Cochrane Q and I2 statistics were used to assess heterogeneity.

Results

Two systematic reviews and 16 additional studies were selected from a search performed of existing systematic reviews. These included 2 randomized controlled clinical trials and 28 nonrandomized comparative studies. The risk of complications, such as injury to organs by the Clavien-Dindo classification, was lower with RARP than with LRP (relative risk [RR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23–0.85; p=0.01). The risk of urinary incontinence was lower (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31–0.60; p<0.000001) and the potency rate was significantly higher with RARP than with LRP (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11–1.70; I²=78%; p=0.003). Regarding positive surgical margins, no significant difference in risk between the 2 groups was observed; however, the biochemical recurrence rate was lower after RARP than after LRP (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48–0.73; I²=21%; p<0.00001).

Conclusions

RARP appears to be a safe and effective technique compared with LRP with a lower complication rate, better potency, a higher continence rate, and a decreased rate of biochemical recurrence.

Urologic robotic surgery in Korea: past and present

Since 2005 when the da Vinci surgical system was approved as a medical device by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare, 51 systems have been installed in 40 institutions as of May 2015. Although robotic surgery is not covered by the national health insurance service in Korea, it has been used in several urologic fields as a less invasive surgery. Since the first robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in 2005, partial nephrectomy, radical cystectomy, pyeloplasty, and other urologic surgeries have been performed. The following should be considered to extend the indications for robotic surgery: training systems including accreditation, operative outcomes from follow-up results, and cost-effectiveness. In this review, the history and current status of robotic surgeries in Korea are presented.

Comparison of functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the 6-mo and 12-mo functional outcomes after retropubic, laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP); robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and the Web of Knowledge databases updated to March, 2014 for relevant published studies. After data extraction and quality assessment via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1. Either a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model was used. Potential publication bias was assessed using visual inspection of the funnel plots, and verified by the Egger linear regression test.

RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified in total: 14 articles comparing LRP with RRP, 12 articles comparing RARP with RRP, and 11 articles comparing RARP with LRP. For urinary continence, a statistically significant advantage was observed in RARP compared with LRP or RRP both at 6 mo [odds ratio (OR) = 1.93; P < 0.01, OR = 2.23; P < 0.05, respectively] and 12 mo (OR = 1.47; P < 0.01, OR = 2.93; P < 0.01, respectively) postoperatively. The continence recovery rates after LRP and RRP, with obvious heterogeneity (6-mo: I² = 74%; 12-mo: I² = 75%), were equivalent (6-mo: P = 0.52; 12-mo: P = 0.75). In terms of potency recovery, for the first time, we ranked the three surgical approaches into a superiority level: RARP > LRP > RRP, with a statistically significant difference at 12 mo [RARP vs LRP (OR = 1.99; P < 0.01); RARP vs RRP (OR = 2.66; P < 0.01); LRP vs RRP (OR = 1.34; P < 0.05)], respectively. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses according to adjustment of the age, body mass index, prostate volume, Gleason score or prostate-specific antigen did not vary significantly.

CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that minimally invasive approaches (RARP or LRP) are effective procedures for functional recovery. However, more high-quality randomized control trials investigating the long-term functional outcomes are needed.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncologic outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

CONTEXT

Despite the large diffusion of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), literature and data on the oncologic outcome of RARP are limited.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate lymph node yield, positive surgical margins (PSMs), use of adjuvant therapy, and biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival following RARP and perform a cumulative analysis of all studies comparing the oncologic outcomes of RARP and retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP).

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed in August 2011, searching Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. A free-text protocol using the term radical prostatectomy was applied. The following limits were used: humans; gender (male); and publications dating from January 1, 2008. A cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager software v.4.2 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 11.0 SE software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We retrieved 79 papers evaluating oncologic outcomes following RARP. The mean PSM rate was 15% in all comers and 9% in pathologically localized cancers, with some tumor characteristics being the most relevant predictors of PSMs. Several surgeon-related characteristics or procedure-related issues may play a major role in PSM rates. With regard to BCR, the very few papers with a follow-up duration >5 yr demonstrated 7-yr BCR-free survival estimates of approximately 80%. Finally, all the cumulative analyses comparing RARP with RRP and comparing RARP with LRP demonstrated similar overall PSM rates (RARP vs RRP: odds ratio [OR]: 1.21; p=0.19; RARP vs LRP: OR: 1.12; p=0.47), pT2 PSM rates (RARP vs RRP: OR: 1.25; p=0.31; RARP vs LRP: OR: 0.99; p=0.97), and BCR-free survival estimates (RARP vs RRP: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.9; p=0.526; RARP vs LRP: HR: 0.5; p=0.141), regardless of the surgical approach.

CONCLUSIONS

PSM rates are similar following RARP, RRP, and LRP. The few data available on BCR from high-volume centers are promising, but definitive comparisons with RRP or LRP are not currently possible. Finally, significant data on cancer-specific mortality are not currently available.

Effect of Bladder Neck Preservation and Posterior Urethral Reconstruction during Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Urinary Continence

PURPOSE

To report our results on urinary continence after bladder neck preservation (BNP) and posterior urethral reconstruction (PUR) during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 107 patients who underwent RALP were compared on the basis of whether the patients underwent BNP and PUR, BNP only, or the standard technique (ST). In group A (n=31 patients), ST was performed by using Ven velthoven continuous suturing for urethrovesical anastomosis. In group B (n=28 patients), ST with only PUR was performed. In group C (n=48 patients), both the BNP and PUR techniques were used. "Recovery of continence" was defined as the use of 1 pad (50 ml) or less within 24 hours.

RESULTS

The three groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics. The mean operative time and the mean blood loss decreased significantly from group A to group C (p=0.021 for mean operative time and p=0.004 for the mean blood loss). Mean catheterization time was 8.9, 7.8, and 7.1 days in each group (p=0.047). Early return of urinary continence at 3 months was observed in group B (89.2%) and group C (90.6%) compared with group A (71%). However, continence at 6 months was comparable in the 3 groups (87.5% in group A, 92.8% in group B, and 92.3% in group C). Rates of positive surgical margins decreased from 30.2% in group A to 20% in group B and 12% in group C.

CONCLUSIONS

BNP and PUR during RALP showed a favorable impact on the early postoperative recovery of continence while not affecting positive surgical margins.