scholarly journals Single plus one port robotic radical prostatectomy (SPORP); Initial experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volkan Tugcu ◽  
Abdulmuttalip Simsek ◽  
Ismail Evren ◽  
Kamil Gokhan Seker ◽  
Ramazan Kocakaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Serum Level ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robotic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Postoperative Continence

Objective: This article reports on patients with early stage prostate cancer treated with single plus one port robotic radical prostatectomy (SPORP). Materials and methods: Since January 2014, we performed SPORP in 8 patients with localized prostate cancer. Age of patients, clinical stage, operation time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, blood loss, histopathological evaluation, postoperative continence, serum level of PSA were evaluated. Results: Mean age of the 8 patients was 59.85 years. All operations were completed without conversion to standard robotic procedure or open surgery. No intra operative complications occurred. Mean operating time was 143 minutes; prostate excision 123 minutes and urethrovesical anastomosis 20 minutes. Mean blood loss was 45 ml. Preoperative Gleason scores were (3 + 4) in one patient and (3 + 3) in 7 patients. Postoperative Gleason scores were (3 + 4) in 2 patients, and (3 + 3) in 6 patients. All these 8 cases were in T1c clinical stage. Early postoperative complications were drain leakage (n = 1), atelectasis (n = 1), wound infection (n = 1) and fever (n = 1). There was no positive surgical margin. The serum level of PSA was less than 0.2 ng/ml and no other complications happened during the 4 to 12 months follow-up period. Postoperative continence and cosmetic results were excellent. Conclusions: It is relatively easy for urologists who are skilled in traditional laparoscopic and robotic surgeries to master SPORP. However long-term outcomes of this surgery need further investigations.

scholarly journals Predictors of complications occurring after open and robot-assisted prostate cancer surgery: a retrospective evaluation of 1062 consecutive patients treated in a tertiary referral high volume center

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Benito Porcaro ◽  
Alessandro Tafuri ◽  
Riccardo Rizzetto ◽  
Nelia Amigoni ◽  
Marco Sebben ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Open Approach ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Tertiary Referral ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
The Third ◽  
Major Complications

AbstractTo investigate factors associated with the risk of major complications after radical prostatectomy (RP) by the open (ORP) or robot-assisted (RARP) approach for prostate cancer (PCa) in a tertiary referral center. 1062 consecutive patients submitted to RP were prospectively collected. The following outcomes were addressed: (1) overall postoperative complications: subjects with Clavien-Dindo System (CD) one through five versus cases without any complication; (2) moderate to major postoperative complications: cases with CD < 2 vs.  ≥ 2, and 3) major post-operative complications: subjects with CDS CD ≥  3 vs.  < 3. The association of pre-operative and intra-operative factors with the risk of postoperative complications was assessed by the logistic regression model. Overall, complications occurred in 310 out of 1062 subjects (29.2%). Major complications occurred in 58 cases (5.5%). On multivariate analysis, major complications were predicted by PCa surgery and intraoperative estimated blood loss (EBL). ORP compared to RARP increased the risk of major CD complications from 2.8 to 19.3% (OR = 8283; p < 0.0001). Performing ePLND increased the risk of major complications from 2.4 to 7.4% (OR = 3090; p < 0.0001). Assessing intraoperative blood loss, the risk of major postoperative complications was increased by BL above the third quartile when compared to subjects with intraoperative blood loss up to the third quartile (10.2% vs. 4.6%; OR = 2239; 95%CI: 1233–4064). In the present cohort, radical prostatectomy showed major postoperative complications that were independently predicted by the open approach, extended lymph-node dissection, and excessive intraoperative blood loss.

Is “extreme” bladder neck preservation in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy a safe procedure?

2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-154
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Dal Moro ◽  
Michele Zazzara ◽  
Alessandro Morlacco ◽  
Marina Paola Gardiman ◽  
Giovanni Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Bladder Neck ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Robotic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Pathologic Findings ◽  
Expert Surgeon ◽  
Neck Preservation

Introduction: The aim was to investigate the surgical and pathological outcomes of an “extreme” bladder neck preservation in prostate cancer patients treated with robotic radical prostatectomy. The greatest concern about the “extreme” bladder neck preservation is the potential risk of creating a positive surgical margin at the level of bladder neck. Materials and methods: We prospectively collected data from 88 patients with diagnosed prostate cancer who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy with “‘extreme’ bladder neck preservation.” All surgical procedures were performed by the same expert surgeon (F.D.M.). In this study, “‘extreme’ bladder neck preservation” was considered when the length of the spared intraprostatic segment of bladder neck was ⩾1 cm. We compared the histopathologic data with those of a homogeneous similar cohort of 88 consecutive patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy without bladder neck preservation. Results: The two groups analyzed were comparable according to clinical and pathological characteristics. A positive surgical margin at the level of bladder neck was found in five (5.7%) cases in the “extreme” bladder neck preservation group and in six cases (6.8%) in the no–bladder neck preservation group. The prostatic base was involved by neoplasia in 14 and 19 patients (15.9% and 21.6%, respectively); of these, five (35.7%) and six (31.6%) had positive surgical margin at the level of bladder neck, respectively. The pathological staging in positive surgical margin at the level of bladder neck patients was pT3 in five (100%) cases in the “extreme” bladder neck preservation group and in four (66.7%) cases when we decided not to preserve the bladder neck. Conclusion: We demonstrated that “extreme” bladder neck preservation is a safe oncological procedure with similar pathologic findings of a comparable no–bladder neck preservation series. Positive surgical margins at the level of bladder neck are linked to neoplasia with adverse pathological features, rather than the “extreme” bladder neck preservation procedure.

Urinary continence four weeks following Retzius-sparing robotic radical prostatectomy: The UK experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher G Eden ◽  
Dimitrios Moschonas ◽  
Ricardo Soares
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Surgical Margin ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Urinary Continence ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robot Assisted

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate urinary continence four weeks following Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients and methods: Forty patients with T2–T3 prostate cancer underwent Retzius-sparing-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and their results were compared with those from the 40 patients having robot-assisted radical prostatectomy done by the same surgeon immediately prior to the adoption of Retzius-sparing-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Results: Patients in the two groups had similar age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, biopsy Gleason sum, clinical stage, d’Amico risk profile, blood loss, prostate weight and post-operative hospital stay. Median operating time (200 (interquartile range=155–266) vs 223 (interquartile range=100–238) min; p=0.05) and catheterisation (8 (interquartile range=8–8) vs 14 (interquartile range=14–14) days; p<0.0001) were shorter in the Retzius-sparing group, many of whom had suprapubic catheters inserted. The overall complication rate was lower in Retzius-sparing patients (2.5% vs 8.0%; p=0.36). Positive surgical margin rates were similar for Retzius-sparing and non-Retzius-sparing patients and decreased with greater experience with the Retzius-sparing technique: 16.7% vs 7.7% for pT2 ( p=0.65) and 31.8% vs 14.3% for pT3 ( p=0.44). Initial prostate specific antigen was <0.1 ng/ml in 97.5% and 100%, respectively ( p=1.00). At four weeks post-operation 0, 1 and 2 pads/day were needed in the Retzius-sparing group in 90.0%, 7.5% and 2.5% of patients, compared to 37.5% ( p<0.0001), 32.5% ( p=0.01) and 30% ( p=0.002) of men having conventional surgery. Conclusion: Retzius-sparing-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is faster than the anterior approach to the prostate, allows a shorter catheterisation time and produces dramatically better continence results at four weeks with 90% of patients being pad-free and 97.5% of patients needing 0–1 pads/day.

scholarly journals Single-Port Robot-Assisted Perineal Radical Prostatectomy: Our Initial Experience

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Huang ◽  
Yukun Wu ◽  
Wenji Li ◽  
Zongren Wang ◽  
Junxing Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Foley Catheter ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Conversion To Open Surgery ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the clinical value of robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (RPRP) in the treatment of early localized prostate cancer.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 3 consecutive patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from January 2020 to May 2020 who received RPRP in our center. The main outcomes assessed were operating time, perioperative complications and need for conversion to open surgery. Results: 3 patients successfully underwent RPRP with no conversion to open surgery. No intra-operative complications were seen. Average operative time was 201.67±61.53 min, console time was131.67±32.53 min, with an estimated blood loss of 183.33±28.87mL. 2 patients were discharged within 10 days postoperatively with perineal drainages removed. The Foley catheter was removed 2 weeks after surgery. One patient had a positive surgical margin (33.3%). 2 patients were continent immediately after removal of the Foley catheter, 1 patient was continent 1 month postoperatively. The sexual function of 2 patients recovered within 1 month and 1 patient recovered within 3 months. The PSA reexamination was 0-0.1µg/L one month after operation.Conclusion: For patients with early localized prostate cancer, robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy is a safe and effective method, and has outstanding advantages in radical tumor resection and postoperative urine control.

scholarly journals Functional and early oncological results in 2D vs 3D laparoscopic prostatectomy

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Oleg A. Bogomolov ◽  
Mikhail I. Shkolnik ◽  
Andrej D. Belov ◽  
Svetlana A. Sidorova ◽  
Denis G. Prokhorov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Total Operative Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Prostatectomy ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Aim. To evaluate functional and early oncologic results with 2D and 3D laparoscopic prostatectomy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Materials and methods. In 2016 to 2017, 124 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed for localized prostate cancer, 71 using 2D-HD and 53 using 3D-HD laparoscopic systems (Karl Storz). Data on total operative time, time required for prostatectomy and for anastomosis, estimated blood loss, intraoperative and early postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade), early functional results, surgical margins, upgrading of clinical stage, and frequency of biochemical recurrence were recorded. Results. The total operative was significantly higher in the 2D than in the 3D group (152 min [range 100–192 min] vs 126 min [90–154 min]), (p < 0.05). The shorter time in the 3D group was achieved by a decrease in the anastomosis time (38 ± 4 min vs 26 ± 4 min, p < 0.05). Significant blood loss was significantly greater in the 2D group (240 ± 80 ml vs 190 ± 70 ml, p < 0.05). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the incidence and severity of postoperative complications. Conclusion. Compared with traditional 2D devices, using stereoscopic 3D laparoscopic devices for prostatectomy reduces total operative time, particularly during the reconstructive stage, as well as the volume of intraoperative blood loss. Additional prospective, randomized trials and longer postoperative follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.

scholarly journals Comparison Study Between Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Patient with TUR-P History

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 116
Author(s):  
Moamar Andar Roamare Siregar ◽  
Chaidir Arif Mochtar ◽  
Rainy Umbas ◽  
Agus Rizal Hamid
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Surgical Complications ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Transurethral Resection Of Prostate ◽  
Positive Surgical Margin ◽  
Prostate Hyperplasia ◽  
Robotic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Operative Duration

Background: The number of men with benign prostate hyperplasia undergoing transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) with the subsequent development of prostate cancer has been increasing. This study aimed to compare the surgical, oncological, and functional outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy techniques in patients with the history of TURP.Methods: Literature search of electronic databases was performed through Pubmed, Science Direct, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL databases. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was then employed to assess the risk of bias in each study. Grey literature was also searched from sources such as Cancer Care Ontario and conference abstracts. Critical appraisals of included studies were conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results: The searches located 1258 citations, but only 11 studies were included in the final selection. Most studies had a good methodological quality based on the Ottawa Scale. The mean age of samples was varied among each study from 61.8 to 70.8 years. The TURP history significantly affects biochemical recurrences (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.14–4.59), intraoperative blood loss (MD 57 ml; 95% CI 6–108 m), prolonged operative duration (MD 20 minutes; 95% CI 3–37 minutes), and surgical complications (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.79–3.60) following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. In the subgroup analysis, only prolonged operative duration and surgical complications were significant both in laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy. There was no association between the TURP history and the positive surgical margin rate in total and subgroup analyses. Conclusions: The previous TURP history affects the outcomes of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, either laparoscopic or robotic.

scholarly journals Severe intraoperative bleeding predicts the risk of perioperative blood transfusion after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Benito Porcaro ◽  
Riccardo Rizzetto ◽  
Nelia Amigoni ◽  
Alessandro Tafuri ◽  
Aliasger Shakir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Primary Treatment ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Robot Assisted ◽  
Intraoperative Bleeding ◽  
Perioperative Blood Transfusion

AbstractTo evaluate potential factors associated with the risk of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) with implications on length of hospital stay (LOHS) and major post-operative complications in patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) as a primary treatment for prostate cancer (PCa). In a period ranging from January 2013 to August 2019, 980 consecutive patients who underwent RARP were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical factors such as intraoperative blood loss were evaluated. The association of factors with the risk of PBT was investigated by statistical methods. Overall, PBT was necessary in 39 patients (4%) in whom four were intraoperatively. Positive surgical margins, operating time and intraoperative blood loss were associated with perioperative blood transfusion on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, the risk of PBT was predicted by intraoperative blood loss (odds ratio, OR 1.002; 95% CI 1.001–1.002; p < 0.0001), which was associated with prolonged operating time and elevated body mass index (BMI). PBT was associated with delayed LOHS and Clavien–Dindo complications > 2. In patients undergoing RARP as a primary treatment for PCa, the risk of PBT represented a rare event that was predicted by severe intraoperative bleeding, which was associated with increased BMI as well as with prolonged operating time. In patients who received a PBT, prolonged LOHS as well as an elevated risk of major Clavien–Dindo complications were seen.

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 Assessment of PSIM (Prostatic Systemic Inflammatory Markers) Score in Predicting Pathologic Features at Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer Who Met the Inclusion Criteria for Active Surveillance

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 355
Author(s):  
Matteo Ferro ◽  
Gennaro Musi ◽  
Deliu Victor Matei ◽  
Alessandro Francesco Mistretta ◽  
Stefano Luzzago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Inflammatory Markers ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Robotic Radical Prostatectomy ◽  
Lymphocyte Ratio ◽  
Risk Prostate Cancer ◽  
Low Risk Prostate Cancer

Background: circulating levels of lymphocytes, platelets and neutrophils have been identified as factors related to unfavorable clinical outcome for many solid tumors. The aim of this cohort study is to evaluate and validate the use of the Prostatic Systemic Inflammatory Markers (PSIM) score in predicting and improving the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in men undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy for low-risk prostate cancer who met the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. Methods: we reviewed the medical records of 260 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. We performed a head-to-head comparison between the histological findings of specimens after radical prostatectomy (RP) and prostate biopsies. The PSIM score was calculated on the basis of positivity according to cutoffs (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) 2.0, platelets-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) 118 and monocyte-to-lymphocyte-ratio (MLR) 5.0), with 1 point assigned for each value exceeding the specified threshold and then summed, yielding a final score ranging from 0 to 3. Results: median NLR was 2.07, median PLR was 114.83, median MLR was 3.69. Conclusion: we found a significantly increase in the rate of pathological International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) ≥ 2 with the increase of PSIM. At the multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA density, prostate volume and PSIM, the latter was found the sole independent prognostic variable influencing probability of adverse pathology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document