scholarly journals Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following open trans-vesical adenomectomy: A single centre experience and review of the literature

2020 ◽  
pp. 039156032097985
Author(s):  
Fanourios Georgiades ◽  
Kostas Konstantinou ◽  
Chryssanthos Kouriefs
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Previous History ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Robotic Assisted ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Literature Evidence ◽  
The Mean

Introduction: Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) following endoscopic resection of the prostate is known to be feasible with good outcomes. However, the literature evidence is limited on the feasibility and outcomes of RALRP following open prostatic surgery. In this study, our aim was to report our experience with RALRP in patients who had undergone trans-vesical adenomectomy of the prostate in the past. Patients and methods: We reviewed our prospectively maintained database of men treated with RALRP at our institution to identify patients with previous history of open suprapubic trans-vesical adenomectomy, between 2016 and 2020. Data were collected on demographic information, interventions, oncological outcomes and follow-up. Results: Out of 362 patients, four individuals were identified that had previous open suprapubic trans-vesical adenomectomy. The mean age was 71 years with a mean pre-operative prostate specific antigen (PSA) of 11.35 ng/ml, and an average of 10 years after their trans-vesical adenomectomy. The mean console time was 119 min with an average estimated blood loss of 137.5 ml and 75% underwent lymphadenectomy. Post-operatively, all patients were discharged after 1 day with their urinary catheters removed at 7 days post-op. For one of the patients, a urine leak was identified, and his pelvic drain was removed at 5 days instead of 1 day as for the other three patients. No other complications were noted within 30 days. The average prostate weight was 54.7 g with all specimens being T3a R0. At 6 weeks follow-up, PSA was undetectable, three patients reported full continence and 1 was using two pads/day. Conclusion: RALRP following previous open trans-vesical prostatectomy is feasible and safe with excellent oncological outcomes. They are, however, more challenging and cumbersome with increased console time.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer, A Single-Surgeon Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 1300-1308
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Surgeon Experience ◽  
Potency Rate

Objective: To compare the treatment outcomes between laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) in clinically localized prostate cancer in a tertiary care hospital in Thailand by a single-surgeon experience. Materials and Methods: Between January 2013 and June 2019, 171 patients with clinically localized prostate cancer underwent minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. These were LRP in 62 patients and RALP in 109 patients. All clinical data were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographic data, perioperative parameters, pathological reports, oncological outcomes, and functional outcomes including continence and potency rate at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were compared between groups. Results: Patients in the RALP group were significantly younger (p=0.03) and had a shorter follow-up period (p=0.004). The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the RALP group (p=0.001). There were no significant differences in intraoperative and 30-day postoperative complications. Pathological results and overall positive surgical margin rate (PSM) were not significantly different. In pT3 patients, PSM was significantly lower in the RALP group (p=0.045). Oncological outcomes were not different in term of biochemical recurrence (BCR) rate (p=0.3), median time to BCR (p=0.45), BCR-free survival (p=0.81), and overall survival (p=0.99). The continence rate was significantly better in the RALP group in every period after surgery (p=0.01, <0.001, 0.001, and p=0.02 at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively). The potency rate who performed bilateral neurovascular bundles sparing was not different between groups. Conclusion: RALP provided a significant improvement of continence recovery and PSM rate in non-organ confined disease. Estimated blood loss was significantly lower among the RALP patient. Larger numbers of patients with longer follow-up will justify proofing these findings. Keywords: Laparoscopic surgery, Robot-assisted surgery, Radical prostatectomy, Prostate cancer

scholarly journals Three-dimensional Camera Systems Assistant the Sheath of Prostate Preservation Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Technique and Initial Experience

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lingmin Song ◽  
Gang Wang ◽  
Wenbo Gao ◽  
Yusheng Yang ◽  
Guobin Weng
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Resection Margins ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Background: To report our refinement of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by preservation of the sheath of prostate (SPP-LRP) and 1-year follow-up results.Methods: SPP-LRP was performed in 39 consecutive patients diagnosed as clinically localized prostate cancer from January 2016 to December 2018. The inclusion criteria consisted of Gleason score ≤7, tPSA＜10 ng/ml, positive in no more than 3 in 12 needles by systematical puncture biopsy, less than 50% tumor core involvement, clinical stage T1-2, good potency. The oncological results were identified by postoperative pathology test. Functional outcomes, including continence and potency, were followed postoperatively.Results: The mean operation time was 108.3±35.2 min and the mean estimated blood loss was 129.3±46.4 ml with no transfusion. The catheter was removed 7 days after the surgery. There were no relevant postoperative complications requiring intervention. The histopathological results showed 2 cases (6.1%) in pT2 and 1 case (16.7%) in pT3 presented positive resection margins for tumor (R1). Only 1 case (pT3a,Gleason score 8) suffered pelvic lymph node metastasis. No biochemical relapse was observed after 1-year follow-up. The continence rates were 71.8% and 87.2% after 1 and 3 months, and no patients suffered G2 incontinence after 6 months , and 97.4% recovered continence after 12 months. The potency rates were 61.5% and 82.1% after 1 and 3 months, and that was 92.3% after 12 months. Conclusion:SPP-LRP is a practical and worth-promoting technique for RP. The initial results are preferable and promising in technical, oncological and functional aspects.

scholarly journals Comparison of functional and oncological outcomes of innovative “three-port” and traditional “four-port” laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer

BMC Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Xu ◽  
Si-da Cheng ◽  
Yi-ji Peng ◽  
Qian Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Biochemical Recurrence ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Oncological Outcomes ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Abstract Background To compare the functional and oncological outcomes between innovative “three-port” and traditional “four-port” laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). Methods We retrospectively collected the data of PCa patients treated at our institutions from June 2012 to May 2016. According to the inclusion criteria, a total of 234 patients were included in the study, including 112 in group A (four-port) and 122 in group B (three-port). The perioperatively surgical characteristics, functional and oncological outcomes were compared between groups. Results There were no statistical differences in the baseline parameters between these two groups. Compared with group A, the operative time (OT) and estimated blood loss (EBL) were significantly less in group B. On follow-up, the rate of positive surgical margin (PSM), prostate specific antigen (PSA) biochemical recurrence and continence after LRP did not show any statistically significant difference between the groups. An identical conclusion was also received in comparison of overall survival (OS) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BRFS) between both groups. Conclusions Innovative “three-port” LRP can significantly shorten the OT and reduce the EBL compared with the traditional “four-port” LRP. Meanwhile, it does not increase the rate of PSM and PSA biochemical recurrence. “Three-port” LRP could be popularized in the future in view of its superior surgical technique, considerably better functional outcomes and remarkable oncological control.

scholarly journals A novel “Three-port” trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Xu ◽  
Yi-ji Peng ◽  
Guo-Zhong Ma ◽  
Qian Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Trocar Placement ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group B ◽  
Group D ◽  
Placement Technique

Abstract Background: To introduce a novel “three-port” trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 300 patients with PCa who received surgical treatment between November 2010 and June 2015 at our institution. They were divided into group A: three-port LRP, group B: conventional four-five port LRP, group C: open RP (ORP) and group D: robotic-assisted RP (RARP). A learning curve was analyzed by dividing patients of group A into the early and late stages.Results: All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics except for the relatively smaller prostate volume in group A. The three-port LRP operations were performed successfully with only 8 cases conversion to the conventional LRP. None of any severe complications or conversion to ORP occurred. In group A, the mean operative time (OT) duration was 113.8min, the mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 94.2ml, the mean drainage days was 4.0d, the mean hospitalization was 5.1d, and 27.8% of the prostate specimen margins (PSM) were positive. The differences of OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization and transfusion in group A were statistically significant among the majority of the other groups (p<0.05). After undergoing the early stages of a learning curve analysis in three-port LRP, the EBL was obviously decreased.Conclusions: Three-port LRP is a novel technique that exhibits superior intraoperative advantages to the conventional LRP. Due to its less OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization and transfusion with a shorter learning curve, it should be recommended and popularized in the clinical practice!

scholarly journals Positive surgical margin rates during the robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy learning curve of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. E409-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony F. Adili ◽  
Julia Di Giovanni ◽  
Emma Kolesar ◽  
Nathan C. Wong ◽  
Jen Hoogenes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Learning Curve ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
Margin Status ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Since its introduction, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) has gained widespread popularity, but is associated with a variable learning curve. Herein, we report the positive surgical margin (PSM) rates during the RARP learning curve of a single surgeon with significant previous laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) experience.Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study of the first 400 men with prostate cancer treated with RARP by a single surgeon (BS) with significant LRP experience. Our primary outcome was the impact of case timing in the learning curve on margin status. Our analysis was conducted by dividing the case numbers into quartiles (Q1‒Q4) and determining if a case falling into an earlier quartile had an impact on margin status relative to the most recent quartile (Q4).Results: The Q1 cases had an odds ratio for margin positivity of 1.74 compared to Q4 (p=0.1). Multivariate logistic regression did not demonstrate case number to be a significant predictor of PSM. The mean Q1 operative time was 207.4 minutes, decreasing to 179.2 by Q4 (p<0.0001). The mean Q1 estimated blood loss was 255.1 ml, decreasing to 213.6 by Q4 (p=0.0064). There was no change in length of hospitalization within the study period.Conclusions: Even when controlling for copredictors, a statistically significant learning curve for PSM rate of a surgeon with significant previous LRP experience was not detected during the first 400 RARP cases. We hypothesize that previous LRP experience may reduce the RARP PSM learning curve.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document