Is water vapor thermal therapy safe and feasible in elderly and frail men? The Italian experience

PURPOSE

In recent years, water vapor thermal therapy (WVTT) has spread as minimally invasive technique in lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia treatment. Even if its safety and feasibility have been largely proved in young men, nobody has proved the same feasibility and safety in the elderly (men older than 75 years old). Our aim is to compare WVTT safety outcomes in men older than 75 with younger men.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on men who underwent water vapor thermal therapy from 2019. We compared data on operative time, number of injections, intra-operative and post-operative complications, reinterventions rate.

RESULTS

We enrolled 426 patients; among these, 60 were older than 75 years old, 366 were younger. Our cohorts of patients had similar results in terms of intra-operative and post-operative complications. Operative time accounts about 11 min for both groups (p = 0.535), total number of injections was seven for young men and eight for elderly (p = 0.314). We found no intra-operative complications in elderly men group and only one in the younger group (p = 0.678), while five younger men underwent clot retention, and two elderly men experienced this complication (p = 0.239). Only one transfusion occurred in the elderly group. No differences between groups occurred in terms of length of stay, post-operative urinary retention and reintervention rate, while catheterization time was longer in the elderly men.

CONCLUSION

WVTT is a safe procedure in elderly patients with comparable intra-operative and post-operative complication rate in comparison with younger patients.

Robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using the novel Hugo™ RAS system: Feasibility, setting and perioperative outcomes of the first off-clamp series

INTRODUCTION

Hugo Robot-Assisted Surgery (RAS) System has been conceived with enhanced modularity but its role for nephron-sparing surgery setting still remains poorly explored. We aimed to describe our experience in robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) with a three-arms setting for the first off-clamp series using the new Hugo RAS System.

METHODS

Patients were placed on an extended flank position at the margin of the surgical bed with a slightly flexion (45°). The first 11 mm robotic trocar (camera port) was placed along the pararectal line 14 ± 2 cm far from the umbilicus. The pneumoperitoneum was then induced through the AirSeal system (SurgiQuest, Milford, Connecticut, USA©). Two more 8 mm operative robotic ports were placed under direct vision, either 8 ± 1 cm far from optic's port. Two 12 mm laparoscopic ports for bed-assistant were placed between robotic ports. Monopolar curved shears, fenestrated grasper, and large needle driver were used in a three-instruments configuration.

RESULTS

Off-clamp RAPN was successfully performed in seven patients with cT1 renal masses using a trans-peritoneal route. Median port placement and docking time was 6 min (IQR, 4-8 min). Hemostasis was achieved through renorraphy using a single transfix stitch with sliding clips technique. There was no need for additional ports placement. No intraoperative complications occurred, no clashing of robotic instruments or between the robotic arms was observed. No technical failures of the system occurred. Median console time was 83 min (IQR, 68-115 min). Median estimated blood loss were 200 ml (IQR, 50-400 ml). All patients were discharged between post-operative day 2 and 3, without the need of hospital readmission. No complications were recorded within the first 30 post-operative days.

CONCLUSIONS

We performed the first series of off-clamp RAPN using the novel HUGO RAS System. This novel robotic platform showed an easy-friendly docking system, providing excellent perioperative outcomes with a simple three-arms configuration.

Impact of Robotic Technologies on Prostate Cancer Patients' Choice for Radical Treatment

Prostate cancer (PCa) surgery has a strong impact on men's social and sexual lives. For this reason, many patients ask for robotic surgery. To assess the rate of lost patients due to the lack of a robotic platform (RPl) at our center, we retrospectively selected 577 patients who underwent prostate biopsy between 2020 and 2021 who were eligible for radical prostatectomy (RP) (ISUP ≥ 2; age ≤ 70 yr). Patients eligible for surgery who decided to be operated received a phone call interview asking the reason for their choice. Overall, 230 patients (31.7%) underwent laparoscopic-assisted radical prostatectomy (LaRP) at our center, while 494 patients (68.3%) were not treated in our hospital. Finally, 347 patients were included: 87 patients (25.1%) underwent radiotherapy; 59 patients (17%) were already under another urologist's care; 113 patients (32.5%) underwent robotic surgery elsewhere; and 88 patients (25.4%) followed the suggestion of friends or relatives based on their surgical experience. Despite no surgical technique for RP having shown superiority in terms of oncological or functional outcomes, patients eligible for PCa treatment decided to be operated on elsewhere because of the lack of an RPl. Our results show how the presence of an RPl may increase the case volume of RP by 49% at our center.