Outcomes Of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy Research Articles

Single-port extra-peritoneal robotic radical prostatectomy in a patient with hostile abdomen

ABSTRACT This video explores the technique and outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy (RP) using the da Vinci single-port robot in a 42-year-old obese male with localized intermediate-risk prostate cancer and a prior history of extensive abdominal surgeries. The patient was placed in a supine position, with minimal Trendelenburg, and an extraperitoneal approach was taken, the abdominal cavity was not entered, and standardized steps of robotic RP were executed. The surgery lasted 190 min and the blood loss was 100 mL. The patient was discharged on the postoperative day 1, and the prostate-specific antigen was undetectable after 6 months and he had excellent functional outcomes.

Perioperative Outcomes of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy with Hugo™ RAS versus daVinci Surgical Platform: Propensity Score-Matched Comparative Analysis.

Background/Objectives: There is an urgent need for comparative analyses of the intraoperative, oncological, and functional outcomes of different surgical robotic platforms. We aimed to compare the outcomes of RARP performed at a tertiary referral robotic centre with the novel HugoTM RAS system with those performed with a daVinci surgical system, which is considered the reference standard. Methods: We analysed the data of 400 patients undergoing RARP ± pelvic lymph node dissection between 2021 and 2023, using propensity score (PS) matching to correct for treatment selection bias. All procedures were performed by three surgeons with HugoTM RAS or daVinci. Results: The PS-matched cohort included 198 patients with 99 matched pairs, balanced for all covariates. Positive surgical margins (PSMs) were found in 22.2% and 25.3% (p = 0.616) of patients, respectively, in the HugoTM RAS and daVinci groups. No significant differences were found for other important perioperative outcomes, including median (1st-3rd q) operative time (170 (147.5-195.5) vs. 166 (154-202.5) min; p = 0.540), median (1st-3rd q) estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 (100-150) vs. 100 (100-150) ml; p = 0.834), Clavien-Dindo (CD) ≥ 2 complications (3% vs. 4%; p = 0.498), and social continence at 3 months (73.7% vs. 74.7%; p = 0.353). In multiple analyses, no associations were found between surgical outcomes (PSM, length of PSM, operative time, EBL, length of catheterization, length of hospital stay, social continence at three months after surgery, and CD ≥ 2 complications) and the robotic platform. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that HugoTM RAS enables surgeons to safely and effectively transfer the level of proficiency they reached during their previous experience with the daVinci systems.

Comparative Outcomes of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer.

The effectiveness of radical prostatectomy alone for locally advanced prostate cancer is controversial owing to an increased complication rate and treatment-related morbidity. With technical advances and refinements in surgical techniques, robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has improved the outcomes of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. RARP therefore plays a role in the treatment of locally advanced prostate cancer. In this study, we enrolled a total of 76 patients with pathologic stage pT3a, pT3b, pT4, or pN1. All patients were followed from surgery to June 2022, and their characteristics, perioperative outcomes, complications, adjuvant therapies and outcomes were analyzed. The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the initial PSA level was 20.5 (IQR 10.8-31.6) ng/mL. The median operative time was 205 (IQR 182-241) minutes. Sixty-six patients (86.8%) regained continence within 1 year, and the continence rate within 3 years of follow-up was 90.8% (69 patients). The overall survival rate was 100%. Twenty-two patients had BCR, of whom 13 received salvage androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), 2 received salvage external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) alone, and 7 received combined ADT and EBRT. No patient had disease progression to castration-resistant prostate cancer during a median 36 months of follow-up after salvage therapy. Our results suggest that RARP can also decrease tumor burden and allow for accurate and precise pathological staging with the need for subsequent treatment. Therefore, we recommend that RARP represents a well-standardized, safe, and oncologically effective option for patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

May Outcomes of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy Performed After an Initial Surveillance Strategy Differ from Those from Immediate Surgery? A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis on 362 Patients Undergoing Surgery at a Referral Center.

Introduction: Active surveillance (AS) is a treatment strategy for low-risk prostate cancer (PCa) patients, with extended indication to some intermediate-risk PCa. However, active treatment is necessary in case of disease progression and robotic radical prostatectomy (RALP) is one of the treatment modalities. The aim of the study is to compare outcomes of a delayed RALP after an initial heterogeneous surveillance strategy with those of immediate RALP in a single referral center. Methods: Data from patients who underwent RALP after initial assumed "active surveillance" (referred from different institutions and backgrounds) were compared to those of patients who underwent an immediate RALP after propensity score (PS) matching. The PS analysis was performed matching ISUP score at the time of entering surveillance with ISUP at RALP for the control group; other matching covariates at the time of surgery were considered (including age, prostate-specific antigen, body mass index, prostate size, cT, pre-op Sexual Health Inventory for Men, etc.). Perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes were compared between groups. Results: Three hundred sixty-two RALP patients were included (181 after surveillance and 181 immediate RALP). Patients after surveillance had a worse pT and ISUP score (p < 0.001); LVI and EPE were higher in the surveilled group (13% vs. 5%, p = 0.001; 38% vs. 22%, p = 0.001), without significant difference in positive surgical margin. At a median follow-up of 24 months, the risk of biochemical recurrence (BCR) was significantly higher for delayed RALP (hazard ratio: 4.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.4-12; p = 0.013), whereas potency and continence rate did not differ significantly. Conclusions: At a referral center receiving patients from diverse backgrounds, outcomes of RALP after heterogeneous surveillance strategies are variable and less predictable, maybe attributable to different protocols and surgical planning. The higher BCR rate in a high-risk surveilled cohort may suggest an increased burden of cancer-related care for RALP patients after surveillance.

PE25 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients

PE25 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients <50 years old

Impact of median lobe on urinary function after robotic prostatectomy

Enlarged median lobes (ML) can be technically challenging, particularly during bladder-neck dissection, and may affect urinary functional outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy (RARP). If known, the impact of potentially larger bladder necks on continence and chronic obstruction on postoperative urinary symptoms might aid patient counseling. We assessed the impact of intraoperatively identified median lobes (ML) on urinary function. We reviewed our prospective RP database from 2013 to 2020. AUA symptoms scores (AUA-SS) were assessed preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months. We compared patients with and without ML (NoML). Bladder-neck sparing was routine to avoid reconstruction. Of 663 patients who completed AUA-SS questionnaires at all time points, 202 (30%) had ML. There were no significant differences in demographics, PSA, or clinical stage. Only two patients in ML and one in NoML group required bladder-neck reconstruction (1.2% and 0.2%). There was no immediate or long-term difference in continence rates between groups. Baseline mean AUA-SS was higher in ML patients and showed more improvement postoperatively (-5.5 vs. -3.6, p < .05) with greatest improvement in ML patients with severe preoperative symptoms (-15.1). There was no difference in AUA-SS between groups by 6 months. The presence of enlarged ML does not increase the risk of incontinence after RARP and it appears that ML patients have greater improvements in postsurgical urinary functions. Preoperative diagnosis of ML and lower urinary tract symptoms assessment could be helpful in counseling patients undergoing RARP regarding their expected postoperative urinary outcomes.

PJY05 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostates ≥120 grams

PJY05 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with prostates ≥120 grams

PE08 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients

PE08 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients <50 years old

PE13 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in young patients

PE13 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in young patients

PJY01 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with preoperative PSA levels less than 4 ng/mL

PJY01 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with preoperative PSA levels less than 4 ng/mL

PJY02 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly patients older than 70 years old

PJY02 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in elderly patients older than 70 years old

PE30 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance

PE30 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with low-risk prostate cancer suitable for active surveillance

PJY03 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with very big prostates (≥150 grams)

PJY03 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with very big prostates (≥150 grams)

PE21 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy: Initial experience in 25 cases

PE21 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy: Initial experience in 25 cases

PJY04 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in obese patients (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2)

PJY04 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in obese patients (BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2)

PE34 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with at least 5-year follow-up

PE34 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with at least 5-year follow-up

Outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy for patients in two extreme age-groups (< 50 years vs > 65 years).

Background and aimsTo assess the outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in two different age subgroups of pre-operatively potent patients: younger than 50 years and older than 65 years.MethodsWe included in the present study a number of 202 patients with prostate cancer divided into two groups: 99 patients older than 65 years (group 1) and 103 patients younger than 50 years (group 2).ResultsMore than half of the younger patients were low-risk vs 57% of the older patients who were high-risk. Overall positive surgical margins rate was 21.2% in group 1 vs 12.1% in group 2. The early biochemical recurrence at 6 months after radical prostatectomy was 4% in group 1 vs 11.6% in group 2. The continence rate at 6 months was similar between the two groups and was not correlated with the patients’ age (p=0.72), nerve-sparing (p=0.3 for group 1, p=0.92 for group 2) or pathological staging (overall p=0.81, p=0.89 in group 1 and p=0.63 in group 2). We observed a significantly higher rate of potency for patients in group 2 (91.5% vs 47.2%, p<0.0001). The most important factor associated with the regain of potency at 6 months after the procedure was the age of the patient (p<0.0001), independently of the type of nerve-sparing performed.ConclusionsAge seems to be the most important predictor of the regain of potency after robotic radical prostatectomy. Patients should be counseled accordingly in order to have realistic expectations about the functional results after robotic-assisted surgery.

PE04 - Perioperative outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy: A single institution comparison between transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach

PE04 - Perioperative outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy: A single institution comparison between transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approach

PJY11 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with a TURP history: Experience in 21 patients

PJY11 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with a TURP history: Experience in 21 patients

PE40 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with a median lobe: Experience in 118 patients

PE40 - Outcomes of robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with a median lobe: Experience in 118 patients