Radical Perineal Prostatectomy Research Articles

Comparison of oncological and functional results of robotic and open perineal radical prostatectomy.

We aimed to compare the functional and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent open perineal radical prostatectomy (OPP) and robotic perineal radical prostatectomy (RPP) for prostate cancer (PCa). The data of patients who underwent OPP and RPP from June 2016 to February 2019 due to localized PCa were analyzed. Demographic characteristics, perioperative data and oncological results of the patients were recorded. In addition, the incontinence status of the patients immediately after catheter removal and at the 3rd, 6th, and 12th months were compared. Potency status was evaluated among the patients with preoperative potency, and 12th month potency status was compared. A total of 135 patients were included, of whom 58 (43%) were in the OPP group and 77 (57%) were in the RPP group. The operation time was statistically significantly shorter in the OPP group (83.90 ± 15.48 vs. 110.88 ± 28.10 min, p = 0.001). The amount of bleeding was significantly lower in the RPP group (59.51 ± 22.04 vs. 74.06 ± 17.66, p = 0.002). The continence rates evaluated at the early period, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months were 40.3%, 80.5%, 87.0%, and 90.9%, respectively, for the RPP group and 36.2%, 70.7%, 86.2%, and 89.7%, for the OPP group, indicating no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the 12th month rates of postoperative potency according to the surgical technique (p > 0.05). Although differences were observed between the OPP and RPP techniques in terms of perioperative parameters, oncological and functional results were similar.

Abstract PO5-10-10: Disparities in Work RVUs for Breast and Prostate Cancer Operations

Abstract Introduction: In a vast array of different methods used to quantify healthcare processes, the Relative Value Unit (RVUs) has become the federal precedent set by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to assign value to different procedures and processes. The current RVU conversion factor in 2023 is $33.06 per unit. Physician work RVUs, malpractice RVUs (MP RVUs) and practice expense RVUs (PE RVUs) were first implemented in 1992 as a system for assigning payment to physicians while providing administrative budgeting based on clinical and liability expenditures. These values are subject to reevaluation every 5 years at minimum, or as new services become available. The CMS updates it’s RVU model by consulting the American Medical Association’s Specialty Society Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC), which controversially sets higher values in certain fields of medicine than others. This article will objectively analyze the RVUs provided by the CMS to surgical oncologists treating breast cancer and compare them to the RVUs compensated to urologists treating prostate cancer, across multiple modalities. Methods: Work RVUs, practice expense RVUs, and malpractice RVUs were obtained from the CMS 2023 physician fee schedule, using the HCPCS codes to identify the services from their database. Estimated pre-evaluation times, intra-procedure times, immediate post service times, and total procedural times were gathered from the CY 2023 Final Rule Physician Work Time database provided by CMS. The HCPCS codes used for mastectomy variations were 19301 for partial mastectomy, 19302 for partial mastectomy with lymph node removal, 19303 for a simple complete mastectomy, 19305 for a radical mastectomy, 19306 for an urban type radical mastectomy, and 19307 for a modified radical mastectomy. The HCPCS codes used for armpit lymph nodes were 38740 and 38745 for axillary lymph node dissections. The HCPCS codes used for prostatectomy variations were 55810 and 55812 for a radical perineal prostatectomy, 55840 and 55845 for a radical retropubic prostatectomy, and 55866 for a laparoscopic retropubic radical prostatectomy. The HCPCS codes used for pelvic lymph nodes were 38571-38573 for laparoscopic lymphadenectomies. Work RVUs were compared between mastectomy and prostatectomy procedures, and axillary node procedures were compared to those of pelvic lymph nodes. To further asses any true disparities in the values assigned to the operations, a second analysis of work RVUs divided by total operation times were compared between their surgical counterparts. Conclusion: Values collected from CMS indicate 59% more RVUs are provided to urologists for prostatectomies than breast surgeons for mastectomies per procedure, and 12% more per hour of total procedure time. Additionally, the CMS indicates on average 29% more work RVUs are provided to urologists for pelvic lymph node removals than breast surgeons for axillary lymph node removals, and 3.4% more per hour of total procedure time (appendix 1). Breast cancer and prostate cancer have similar incidence and mortality rates, but one affects mostly women and the other only men. The decision by the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services to place a higher value in prostate cancer management is unknown, and elicits future analysis with surveyed procedural data across the nation for statistical significance determination. Appendix 1 allocated work RVUs, practice expense RVUs, malpractice RVUs, and median operative times for prostate cancer and breast cancer operations. Citation Format: Noah Khosrowzadeh, Kyle Chambers, Matthew Gompels, Cyrus Washington, Jessica Meshman. Disparities in Work RVUs for Breast and Prostate Cancer Operations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO5-10-10.

Evaluation of Perioperative Clinical Parameters and Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Radical Perineal or Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Prospective Randomized Study

Objective: The objective of study is to investigate the effects of radical retropubic and perineal prostatectomy methods in addition to the effect of pelvic lymph node dissection on perioperative morbidities, oncological outcomes and 1-year quality of life in patients with clinically local stage prostate cancer. Material and methods: Patients admitted to our clinic between January 2013 and March 2015 and diagnosed with clinically localized stage prostate cancer were included. A total of 103 patients were randomized into 3 groups in which 38 patients received radical perineal prostatectomy(RPP), 31 had radical retropubic prostatectomy(RRP), and 34 RRP with pelvic lymph node dissection(PLND). Age, comorbidities, preoperative Gleason scores and serum prostate-specific antigen(PSA) data as well as the surgical parameters, clinical and pathological stages, and 1-year follow-up data were recorded for each patient.“Extended prostate cancer index composite (EPIC)” and “SF-12v2™ Health Survey(Version 2.0)” questionnaires were used for overall and disease-specific quality of life at month 0, 1, 6 and 12 visits. Results: No difference was found between the groups with regard to preoperative data such as age, serum PSA levels, clinical stage, biopsy Gleason score and Charlson comorbidity index while intraoperative data for the amount of bleeding and the average amount of transfusion were significantly lower in RPP group(RPP:645cc, RRP:960cc, RRP+PLND:890cc).1-year recurrencefree survivals for RPP, RRP, and RRP+PLND groups were 9.9 months, 11.2 months and 10.2 months, respectively, with no significant difference.Overall and prostate cancer-specific quality of life was similar for all 3 groups.No additional benefit with nerve-sparing surgery was shown in any of the groups in terms of incontinence and erectile functions. Conclusion: Perineal dissection is beneficial in terms of the amount of bleeding and blood transfusion while prolonged postoperative drainage and wound infection rates are higher compared to retropubic approach.All 3 groups were similar in urinary, sexual, gastrointestinal and hormonal functions as well as the quality of life.

Robotik retropubik prostatektomiye aşina cerrahlar için robot yardımlı perineal prostatektomi için öğrenme eğrisi

Objective: To investigate the learning curve for robot assisted laparoscopic radical perineal prostatectomy (robotic RPP) for surgeons who already perform transperitoneal robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Material and Methods: A total of initial 120 robotic RPP cases were analyzed for perioperative data from single surgeon performing to determine the learning curve. Perioperative all data are collected including operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, complications and positive surgical margin results. The consecutive patients were classified into four groups: cases 1–30 (Group 1), cases 31–60 (Group 2), cases 61–90 (Group 3) and cases 91-120 (Group 4). Results: Median age of 61.4 (46-73) years and PSA level was 8.4 (2-32). Mean operative time was 143.2 minutes, and the length of surgery progressively decreased over time (from group 1 to group 4; P<001). Mean console time was 90.6 minutes and significant differences was found group 3 vs. 4 (p=0.047). The mean length of stay was 1.6 days, and significantly decrease after 60 cases over time (P<0.001). Mean removal of the urethral catheter significantly earlier in group 4 (P1vs4=0.012). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to pathologic tumor Gleason score, positive surgical margine of the specimen and complications. Conclusions: This study suggests that surgical qualification for robotic RPP can be obtained at least after 90 cases for an experienced robotic surgeon. Keywords: prostatectomy, robot-assisted, perineal, learning curve, prostate cancer

Single-port robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci XI system: initial experience and learning curve using the cumulative sum method

BackgroundTo evaluate the early functional and oncological outcomes of single-port robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (sp-pRARP) using the da Vinci XI system and analyze its learning curve using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.MethodsThe clinical data of 50 patients who underwent sp-pRARP for localized prostate cancer between May 2020 and May 2022 in our center by a single surgeon were analyzed retrospectively. Demographic information, preoperative and postoperative variables, complications, early functional and oncological outcomes of patients were recorded. The CUSUM method was used to illustrate the learning curve based on operation time.ResultsAll surgeries were completed without conversion. The median (interquartile range, IQR) operation time was 205.0 (82.5) min, whereas the median (IQR) docking time was 30.0 (15.0) min and the console time was 120.0 (80.5) min. The median (IQR) estimated blood loss (EBL) was 50.0 (137.5) mL. Positive surgical margins were detected in five patients (10.0%). The continence rate was 40.9%, 63.6%, 88.4%, and 97.7% at the 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. According to the CUSUM plot, the inflection points of the learning curve were 20 cases, splitting the case series into “early phase” and “late phase.” In “late phase” cases, there was less time spent on each step of the operation and less EBL.ConclusionsSp-pRARP using the da Vinci XI system was verified to be a feasible and reliable surgical approach. According to the CUSUM plot, 20 cases was considered the turning point for surgeons to master the novel technique.

22 - Experience with radical perineal prostatectomy at a single institution in the era of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

22 - Experience with radical perineal prostatectomy at a single institution in the era of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

Comparative assessment of the learning curve of retropubic, laparoscopic, perineal, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Introduction. The learning curve (LC) of radical prostatectomy (RP) is an actual problem in contemporary urology.Objective. To assess the LC of retropubic (rpRP), perineal (plRP), laparoscopic (LRP), and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).Materials and methods. The study included 400 patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (T1cT3bN0M0) who underwent rpRP, plRP, LRP or RARP performed by a single surgeon. Exclusion criteria: refusal of surgical treatment, metastatic prostate cancer, primary multiple cancer, neoadjuvant hormonal, radiation or chemotherapy.Results. Progressive improvement of metric indicators was noted in all groups as the surgical technique was mastered. Maximum rates of reaching the plateau of satisfactory functional and early oncological results were demonstrated in the RARP group after 25 – 50 procedures. In terms of the duration of the surgery, the LRP group showed the longest mastering period of 75 – 100 cases. Regression of blood loss volume requires 50 – 75 procedures in the rpRP and LRP groups, and 25 – 50 approaches in the rpRP and RARP groups. RARP demonstrates advantages in the context of minimization of catheterization time and inpatient period (25 – 50 cases). rpRP is not only associated with a maximum amount (n = 30) and frequency (21,0%) of complications, but also with a relatively long period of reaching a plateau of 50 – 75 cases. The stabilization of functional results is proceeding at the maximum pace in the RARP group at 25 – 50 procedures, in the other groups at 50 – 75 cases. Oncological safety (positive surgical margin) in the LRP, rpRP and RARP groups is achievable after 25 – 50 cases, in the rpRP group at 50 – 75 cases.Conclusion. The period of RP mastering depends on surgical approaches. RARP demonstrates the shortest LC duration.

Long term erectile function results of radical perineal prostatectomy

IntroductionAlthough many patients are being treated by radical prostatectomy (RP), there is still insufficient information about the changes in long-term erectile function after RP. Our aim is to examine long term, up to 5 year erectile function status of patients after Radical Perineal Prostatectomy (RPP). Materials and methodsOne hundred and thirty-two patients, who underwent bilateral nerve-sparing Radical Perineal Prostatectomy (RPP) in between January 2012 and January 2017, with preoperative age≤70, prostate volume<80g, transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy Gleason score (GS)<7, prostate specific antigen (PSA) value<10ng/mL, and cT stage≤2 (N0, M0) were included into this study. Exclusion criteria were previous cardiovascular diseases, serious chronic renal and/or hepatic insufficiency, neurological diseases, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, and severe lung diseases. Patients who received additional treatment (hormonal and/or radiotherapy) after RPP were also excluded from the study group. Erectile function was evaluated before surgery and at postoperative 3rd, 12th, and 60th months. Patients with an “International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) – 5” score of ≥21 and patients whose IIEF-5 scores were between 16 and 20 but responded as “yes” to the “Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) – 2” and “SEP-3” questions were accepted as having normal erectile function. ResultsOut of the 132 patients, 96 (72.7%) of the patients were found to be potent in the first postoperative year. A total of 118 patients were evaluated at the end of 5 years. Eighty seven (73.7%) patients had normal erectile function according to our criteria. DiscussionAccording to the results of our study, short term and long term erectile function outcomes of patients undergoing RPP were favorable and there was no statistically significant difference between short and long term results.

A hybrid technique of lap perineal pelvic lymphadenectomy after open radical perineal prostatectomy in localized carcinoma prostate: Our initial experience.

The major disadvantage of radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) is the difficulty to perform pelvic lymphadenectomy via the same incision. Open retropubic, mini laparotomy, and transperitoneal laparoscopic pelvic lymphadenectomy as an adjunct to open RPP have been tried but need change in patient position and separate incision, thereby decreasing the acceptability of this procedure. Open RPP followed by a lap perineal pelvic lymphadenectomy via the same perineal incision is a hybrid technique that is aimed to decrease morbidity of lymphadenectomy. Patients of low and intermediate risk localized carcinoma prostate with a Partin score of >5% were taken for this procedure. After completing prostatectomy part of RPP, lap perineal pelvic lymphadenectomy was performed via same incision using single incision laparoscopic surgery port. We performed this new hybrid technique in eight patients. Bilateral lymph node dissection required an additional mean time of 35 minutes. A total of 68 nodes were retrieved from eight patients with a median number of eight nodes (range: 6-12). None of our cases had any complications related to lymphadenectomy. Bilateral lymph node dissection was feasible in seven patients, and in one patient, it could be done on one side only. Sandwiching lap perineal pelvic lymphadenectomy between prostatectomy part of RPP and urethra-vesical anastomosis (by open approach) is a safe, reproducible, and feasible approach to pelvic lymphadenectomy compared to lymphadenectomy from other routes with simultaneous reduction in the operative time, patient morbidity, and discomfort. Ease of doing lymphadenectomy from same incision can increase the acceptability of this excellent procedure.

HF02-14 JOHN KELSO ORMOND: MORE THAN A SYNDROME

You have accessJournal of UrologyHistory of Urology Forum II (HF02)1 Sep 2021HF02-14 JOHN KELSO ORMOND: MORE THAN A SYNDROME Naveen Kachroo, Craig Rogers, and James Peabody Naveen KachrooNaveen Kachroo More articles by this author , Craig RogersCraig Rogers More articles by this author , and James PeabodyJames Peabody More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001993.14AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: John Kelso Ormond is remembered for his seminal paper providing the first description in English medical literature of Idiopathic Retroperitoneal Fibrosis (IRF) or Ormond’s Syndrome. We examine the many contributions this progressive Urologist provided in advancing the field of urology. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review concerning the life and works of Dr John Kelso Ormond was performed via online search, review of published historical texts and published material on PubMed. Contemporary records held by The Conrad R. Lam medical archives at Henry Ford Hospital were also reviewed. RESULTS: John Kelso Ormond (1886-1978) received his MD degree from Johns Hopkins University in 1914 and was the first surgical resident at the newly established Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit in 1916. During his training, he also provided medical services in Europe during World War I. On his return, he founded the Division of Urology as the inaugural Chief of Urology from 1920-1952. During his accomplished tenure, in addition to training a future generation of urologists, he published on eclectic areas such as intra-abdominal testis torsion, female stress incontinence treatment, genito-urinary trauma management and even recognition of deep vein thrombosis and targeted prevention of pulmonary embolism in urologic patients in 1952 where “early ambulation was pioneered at Henry Ford Hospital”. His surgical outcome observations following radical perineal prostatectomy were exemplary for that era. His 1947 publication revealed “in as much as at least half of the patients were still sexually active”, testament to his surgical prowess being 35 years prior to Patrick Walsh’s nerve sparing radical prostatectomy and over 50 years prior to Viagra. Regarding urinary incontinence, “I no longer fear it greatly. Some patients have satisfactory control from the start…of 27 patients…none has had incontinence at night”. His indelible mark on medicine was made in 1948 with his seminal description of the clinical and pathologic features of IRF based upon 2 cases he had treated. Seventeen years later, he correctly postulated the systemic nature of the disease related to IgG4 diseases. Today, there are 3457 PubMed results related to Ormond’s syndrome alone. Urology was his life’s passion, practicing until 88 and still writing about his syndrome until his death aged 91. CONCLUSIONS: Dr Ormond’s contribution to urology stretches beyond his eponymous syndrome. His pioneering establishment of the Henry Ford Urology Department and the work he accomplished with his enduring academic passion even to his death, is something to be emulated. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e241-e241 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Naveen Kachroo More articles by this author Craig Rogers More articles by this author James Peabody More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

Robotic radical perineal prostatectomy: tradition and evolution in the robotic era.

To provide an updated review of robotic radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP) with emphasis on the recent advances in terms of surgical technique, outcomes, and new robotic platforms. The technological innovations in the urological field have been applied to radical prostatectomy with the aim of preserving important anatomical structures and reduce patients' morbidity and mortality. In recent years, robotic surgery contributed to resurge radical perineal prostatectomy. In 2014, the Cleveland Clinic group was the first to demonstrate the utility of a robotic approach in RPP. To date, the majority of the reported studies showed that r-RPP has noninferior perioperative, short-term oncological, and functional outcomes compared with the traditional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Given these benefits, r-RPP is a promising approach in selected patients, such as obese ones. Moreover, robotic perineal pelvic lymph node dissection performed through the same incision of r-RPP and the new Single-Port (SP) Robotic System represent further steps towards the overcoming of some intrinsic limitation of this surgical approach making this technique suitable for a larger number of patients with prostatic cancer. Overall, r-RPP represents a reliable and effective novel surgical technique. However, more studies with long-term follow-up are needed to clarify the advantages over RARP.

Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Using Single-port Perineal Approach: Technique and Single-surgeon Matched-paired Comparative Outcomes

BackgroundRadical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) has been revived with the advent of single-port (SP) robotic surgery. However, its interest and precise role need to be evaluated and better defined. ObjectiveTo describe in detail the technique of SP-RPP and compare initial perioperative outcomes with those of multiport robot-assisted transperitoneal radical prostatectomy (MP-RARP). Design, setting, and participantsFrom October 2018 to June 2020, perioperative data of 26 consecutive patients who underwent SP-RPP for localized prostate cancer (PCa) in a single institution were prospectively entered into an institutional review board–approved database. Data of 86 consecutive patients treated from September 2017 to September 2018 with MP-RARP by the same surgeon, before the beginning of the SP experience, were used as comparators. Surgical procedureSP-RPP was performed using the SP robotic platform (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) according to the technique described in the supplementary video. MeasurementsDemographics, and intra- and postoperative data were analyzed in a matched-paired design with a 1:1 ratio on the following factors: age at surgery, prostate-specific antigen level, preoperative Gleason score, and history of abdominal surgery. Results and limitationsAfter matching, baseline characteristics were comparable except for the rate of prior laparotomy, which was higher in the SP-RPP group (52% vs 8%, p < 0.001). In the SP-RPP group, 84% of the patients had a high risk and an unfavorable intermediate risk of positive surgical margins (PSMs) versus 57% in the MP-RARP group (p = 0.03). While the rate of nonlimited PSMs (ie, >3 mm) was higher in the SP-RPP group (38.5% vs 7.7%, p < 0.01), the number of patients with biochemical recurrence at 1 yr was comparable between SP-RPP and MP-RARP (1 vs 3, p = 0.3). ConclusionsSP-RPP is a complex procedure for patients with a complex surgical history and high-risk localized PCa with limited alternative therapeutic options. Patient summaryOur study suggests that patients with high-risk localized prostate cancer and limited treatment options due to a complex abdominal surgical history (ie, frozen pelvis) may be suitable candidates for single-port radical perineal prostatectomy.

SC269 - Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: one-year functional and oncological outcomes

SC269 - Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: one-year functional and oncological outcomes

348 - Robotic-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (RAPP) – resurgence of a robust surgical treatment. Initial experience of 12 cases

348 - Robotic-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (RAPP) – resurgence of a robust surgical treatment. Initial experience of 12 cases

Effect of pelvimetric diameters on success of surgery in patients submitted to robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy.

ABSTRACTObjective:Minimally invasive techniques are used increasingly by virtue of advancements in technology. Surgery for prostate cancer, which has high morbidity, is performed with an increasing momentum based on the successful oncological and functional outcomes as well as cosmetic aspects.Materials and methods:Sixty two patients underwent robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (R-PRP) surgery at our clinic between November 2016 and August 2017. Six pelvimetric dimensions were defined and measured by performing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to operation in all patients. In light of these data, we aimed to investigate the effect of pelvimetric measurements on surgery duration and surgical margin positivity.Results:By using this technique in pelvic area, we observed that measurements only representing surgical site and excluding other pelvic organs had a significant effect on surgery duration, and pelvic dimensions had no significant effect on surgical margin positivity.Conclusion:In R-PRP technique, peroperative findings and oncological outcomes can vary depending on several variable factors, but although usually not taken into account, pelvimetric measurements can also affect these outcomes. However, there is a need for randomised controlled trials to be conducted with more patients.

Robotic Perineal Radical Prostatectomy: Initial Experience with the da Vinci Si Robotic System

Purpose: To investigate the feasibility and surgical technique of robotic perineal radical prostatectomy (RPRP). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 6 consecutive patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from December 2018 to May 2019 who underwent RPRP at our center. Perioperative outcomes were recorded for safety and feasibility analysis. Results: Six patients successfully underwent RPRP with no conversion to open procedures. Operative time was 140 (interquartile range [IQR] 123.75–148.75) min, console time was 70 (IQR 62.5–70) min, with an estimated blood loss of 125 (IQR 100–187.5) mL. Patients were discharged 2 days postoperatively (IQR range 1–3) with pelvic drainages removed. The Foley catheter was removed 2 weeks after surgery. Postoperative pathology revealed 5 patients with locally advanced disease (apical margin-positive prostate cancer [pT3a]bNx). Two patients had a positive surgical margin (33.3%). No complications of Clavien grade 3 and above were recorded; 1 patient had a delay in wound-healing of 1 week. Postoperative continence was achieved for 2 patients immediately after Foley catheter removal, 2 recovered 1-month postoperatively, and 1 recovered within 3 months, and 1 still had mild incontinence at the latest follow-up 1-month postoperatively. Conclusion: RPRP is a safe and feasible alternative for the transperitoneal route in selected patients. Further investigation is required to assess its oncological and quality-of-life results.

Technical advancements in robotic prostatectomy: single-port extraperitoneal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and single-port transperineal robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

BackgroundTo describe our step-by-step techniques for single-port robotic-assisted extraperitoneal and perineal radical prostatectomy as recent technical advancements in this field.MethodsAn English-language literature review was done using search terms including extraperitoneal, transperineal, single-port, robotic surgery, prostate cancer, radical prostatectomy in various combinations. Unique features of the da Vinci SP® platform are discussed. Details of surgical techniques with single-port robotic platform are also covered.ResultsThe relatively recent introduction of the da Vinci SP platform has led to the development of novel techniques for radical prostatectomy. Unique features of this platform including intracorporeal triangulation and double-articulating instruments will likely lead to widespread applications of this novel system. The principles of radical prostatectomy are reproducible with both extraperitoneal and perineal approaches via a single incision.ConclusionsA better cosmetic results as well as a quick recovery maybe potential advantages of single-port extraperitoneal/transperineal robotic prostatectomy. By avoiding the peritoneal cavity, a lower rate of bowel related complications and minimum systemic CO2 absorption can be expected. Adverse effects of steep Trendelenburg positioning can be avoided with these techniques. Evaluation of the oncological and functional outcomes of these techniques will be necessary. Comparative trials with standard robotic surgery and cost-analysis studies remain hot topics for research after implementation of these new platforms at any institute.

Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases.

To assess the early functional and oncological outcomes of a large series of patients who underwent robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP). We retrospectively analysed the patients who underwent robot-assisted RPP for localized prostate cancer between November 2016 and September 2018. Patients who had locally advanced disease proven on biopsy or were suspected to have locally advanced disease on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and patients who had a contraindication for the exaggerated lithotomy position were not included in this study. Patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative variables, complications and follow-up times were recorded. A total of 95 patients were included. Their mean ± sd age was 61.5 ± 6.5years. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) preoperative prostate-specific antigen level was 6.1 (3.7)ng/mL, the median (IQR) operating time was 140 (25) min, and the mean ± sd blood loss was 67.4 ± 17mL. Pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) was performed for 12 patients (12.6%). The median (IQR) hospital stay was 1 (1) days. Positive surgical margins were present in eight patients (8.4%). After catheter removal, the immediate continence rate was 41%. Continence rates were 78%, 87% and 91%, respectively, 3, 6 and 12months after surgery. Potency rates were 49%, 69% and 77%, respectively, 3, 6 and 12months after surgery for patients who had adequate potency preoperatively. The median (IQR) follow-up time was 13 (3.1) months. We conclude that robot-assisted RPP is a reliable and effective surgical technique that can be employed in the treatment of localized prostate cancer regardless of prostate volume, especially in patients with a history of abdominal surgery. As an additional advantage, PLND can be performed through the same incision.

Gasless robotic perineal radical prostatectomy: An initial experience.

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the gold standard treatment method of localized prostate cancer. Today, this surgery is performed with open or minimally invasive methods. The history of open perineal RP (RPP) is very old, but it is not often preferred by urologists. The use of robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP) is very frequently applied today. Robotic perineal RP (r-RPP) by using a Gel-Point and insufflating CO2 into the perineal region was first described in 2014. In this case report, we report a 68-year-old patient with localized prostate cancer in whom we successfully performed gasless r-RPP, and according to our knowledge, this is the first case of gasless r-RPP to be reported.

The evolution and resurgence of perineal prostatectomy in the robotic surgical era.

To review the recent advances in terms of surgical technique and new robotic platforms applied to radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP). A literature review was performed focusing on original articles on perineal prostatectomy searching via Medline/Pubmed and Embase. The entire spectrum was covered such as development of surgical technique including pelvic lymphadenectomy, adoption of novel surgical platforms, learning curve and future directions. Surgical removal of the prostate plays a significant role on the treatment of localized prostate cancer (PCa). RPP was the first surgical approach described for radical prostatectomy. This technique declined in popularity secondary to the development of the retropubic approach. Recently, the appearance of novel robotic technology has generated renewed interest in the perineal approach. There has been a recent resurgence on the interest of radical perineal prostatectomy for the treatment of localized PCa driven by the advent of new robotic surgical technologies into the field. Future studies are needed to better determine the learning curve of the perineal approach and its current role in the treatment of prostate cancer.