Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE: While it remains controversial whether LRP or da Vinci RAP offers any advantages over radical retropubic prostatectomy, LRP and RAP are being used more frequently. We reviewed our experience with these minimally invasive techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed intraoperative and early postoperative complications of 358 LRPs performed from October 2000 to January 2003 with those of 322 RAPs performed from June 2003 to June 2004. The transperitoneal approach with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection was performed using each technique. Data acquisition was done independently of the 3 surgeons. RESULTS: The LRP and RAP groups had similar clinical characteristics in terms of patient race, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, risk group, and pathological tumor grade and stage. Median operative time and estimated blood loss for LRP and RAP were 4.1 and 3.1 hours, and 200 and 250 ml, respectively. No blood transfusions were given intraoperatively, although 8 patients with LRP (2.2%) and 5 with RAP (1.6%) were transfused postoperatively. Of the LRP and RAP patients 21 (5.9%) and 3 (0.3%), respectively, experienced intraoperative complications. Postoperatively 48 patients with LRP (13.4%) and 24 with RAP (6.8%) experienced urine leakage, while 19 with LRP (5.3%) and 9 with RAP (2.8%) had ileus. There were no deaths, myocardial infarctions, pulmonary emboli or cerebrovascular accidents. CONCLUSIONS: In our series surgeon experience derived from LRP may contribute to the lower complication rate and operative time of RAP. Dissemination of surgical technique and management of complications may lead to improved perioperative LRP and RAP morbidity. However, the morbidity of these 2 approaches compares favorably with that of radical retropubic prostatectomy.     

Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution

PURPOSE: There is an ongoing debate about the benefits of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to the open retropubic approach. We compared the last 219 patients treated with open retropubic prostatectomy with 438 patients treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution, focusing on operative data, complications and mid-term outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 1994 to November 1999 a total of 219 patients were treated with open prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection (group 1). From March 1999 to September 2002, 219 patients underwent early (group 2) and 219 underwent late (group 3) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. The same surgeons performed both operations. All 3 groups were similar with respect to mean patient age, mean prostate specific antigen value, median Gleason score, previous transurethral resection of the prostate and neoadjuvant treatment, although there was a slight stage shift in favor of the 2 laparoscopic groups. RESULTS: Mean operating time was significantly shorter after open surgery (196 minutes) compared to the early laparoscopic group (288) but it did not differ significantly from the late laparoscopic group (218). Mean blood loss (1,550 versus 1,100 versus 800 cc) and transfusion rates (55.7% versus 30.1% versus 9.6%) in groups 1 to 3 favored the laparoscopic groups. The complication rate in groups 1 to 3 was lower for laparoscopy (19.2% versus 13.7% versus 6.4%), but the spectrum differed. The early laparoscopic group had a higher incidence of rectal injuries (1.8% versus 3.2% versus 1.4% in groups 1 to 3, respectively) and urinary leakage (0.5% versus 2.3% versus 0.9%), whereas more lymphoceles (6.9% versus 0% versus 0%), wound infection (2.3% versus 0.5% versus 0%), embolism/pneumonia (2.3% versus 0.5% versus 0.5%) and anastomotic strictures (15.9% versus 6.4% versus 4.1%) occurred after open surgery. The amount of postoperative analgesia was significantly greater after open surgery (50.8 versus 33.8 versus 30.1 mg. in groups 1 to 3, respectively). Median catheter time was longer after open retropubic prostatectomy (12 versus 7 versus 7 days in groups 1 to 3, respectively) but the continence rates were similar in all 3 groups at 12 months (89.9% versus 90.3% versus 91.7%). The rate of positive margins did not differ significantly in groups 1 to 3 (28.2% versus 21.0% versus 23.2%), prostate specific antigen recurrence was equivalent related to the different observation periods. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is technically demanding, with an initially longer operative time, higher incidence of rectal injuries and urinary leakage. The overall outcome after 219 cases favors the laparoscopic approach. Consequently, at our institution laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become the method of choice.     

Comparison of length of hospital stay between radical retropubic prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to decrease postoperative morbidity and length of stay for a number of surgical procedures. Furthermore, length of stay after open radical prostatectomy has decreased dramatically during the last decade. We examined differences in length of stay between a prospectively evaluated cohort of patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2003 and March 2006, 1,003 radical prostatectomies were performed at our hospital. Data were collected in prospective fashion and a comparison was made between 374 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and 629 who underwent robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Length of stay, factors influencing length of stay, readmission rates and unscheduled clinic or emergency room visits were evaluated. Patients in the 2 groups were treated using the same clinical care pathway. RESULTS: Overall 94.3% of patients in the radical retropubic prostatectomy group and 97.5% in the robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy group were discharged home on or before postoperative day 1. Mean length of stay in the radical retropubic and robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy groups was 1.25 (median 1.09) and 1.17 days (median 1.03), which was similar and not statistically different (p=0.27). Readmission rates were similar in robot assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy patients (7% and 5%, respectively, p=0.12). Unscheduled clinic or emergency room visits were the same in the robot assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy groups (10%, p=0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy or robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy can be treated on the same clinical pathway. A targeted hospital discharge date of postoperative day 1 can be achieved in the majority of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. Readmission rates or unscheduled hospital visits are necessary in a small percent of patients treated with an early discharge program, of which the majority are caused by ileus.     

Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic prostatectomy, whether or not coupled with robotic assistance, is often considered less invasive than open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Minimal postoperative pain has been reported following robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) but there have been few comparative studies with RRP. We compared perioperative narcotic use and patient reported pain in a prospective patient series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 2003 and May 2004, 314 patients underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution, including RALP in 159, RRP in 154 and conversion in 1. All patients were treated on a postoperative clinical pathway that included 30 mg ketorolac intravenously immediately postoperatively, followed by 15 mg intravenously every 6 hours. No regional anesthesia (epidural/spinal) narcotics or patient controlled analgesic pumps were used. All narcotic use was converted to morphine sulfate equivalents for purpose of analysis. A Likert scale of 0 to 10 was used to assess pain on the day of surgery, and on postoperative days 1 and 14. RESULTS: The total mean morphine sulfate equivalent +/- SD in patients in the RALP and RRP groups was low and, when corrected for length of stay, it was not statistically different (22.41 +/- 1.13 vs 23.01 +/- 1.16 mg, p = 0.72). Mean Likert pain perception scores were low at all time points in the RALP and RRP groups but statistically lower on the day of surgery in the RALP cohort (2.05 +/- 1.99 vs 2.60 +/- 2.25, p = 0.027). Patient reported mean pain scores were almost identical for RALP vs RRP on postoperative days 1 (1.76 +/- 1.87 vs 1.73 +/- 1.77, p = 0.880) and 14 (2.51 +/- 1.91 vs 2.42 +/- 1.84, p = 0.722). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative narcotic use and patient reported pain are low regardless of the surgical approach used for radical prostatectomy. RALP did not provide a clinically meaningful decrease in pain compared with RRP, primarily because of the low pain scores reported in each group. Outcomes other than pain will ultimately determine the role of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and RALP.     

达芬奇机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术的手术要点（附光盘）

达芬奇机器人手术系统在泌尿外科领域的广泛应用和发展是当今世界临床医学发展的里程碑。达芬奇机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术（robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy,RLRP）是所有泌尿外科机器人手术中,与开放和传统腹腔镜手术相比最具明显优势的微创手术。目前在前列腺癌高发的欧美国家,RLRP几乎成为治疗局限性前列腺癌的金标准,在国内RLRP也已取得快速发展。本文就机器人手术系统的国内外发展状况和发展趋势,RLRP的适应证和禁忌证、手术步骤和技巧、优缺点等做一概述。     

Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of postoperative urinary incontinence rates

PURPOSE: We compared the 12-month postoperative urinary incontinence rates of open radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study included all men with clinically localized prostate cancer scheduled for radical prostatectomy (open retropubic or laparoscopic) at the University of Alberta between October 1999 and July 2002. Preoperative evaluation included a 24-hour pad test, fluid volume voiding diary and International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire. Postoperative evaluation included a 24-hour pad test at 3 and 12 months, as well as a voiding diary and International Prostate Symptom Score questionnaire at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 239 patients met the eligibility criteria and consented to participate (172 open radical retropubic prostatectomy, 67 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy). Of the patients 87% (148) treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy and 88% (57) of those treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy completed 12-month followup (p = 0.50). According to 24-hour pad testing 13% of those treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy and 17% of those treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy remained incontinent at 1 year (p = 0.26). There was no difference in 24-hour pad weight, urinary symptom score and urinary quality of life at 1 year between the open and laparoscopic groups overall, or when stratified according to 12-month continence status. The majority of subjects in both groups described mild symptoms and a general satisfaction with urinary quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Based on objective and subjective measures, there were no differences in urinary functional outcomes 1 year after open radical retropubic prostatectomy or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urinary incontinence was found to affect a similar proportion of patients who underwent open (13%) and laparoscopic (17%) radical prostatectomy 12 months postoperatively.     

Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes

PURPOSE: The technique of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is difficult to master and is associated with a steep learning curve. We hypothesized that a structured approach to establishing a laparoscopic prostatectomy program would diminish complications during the learning process and that robotic technology would be useful in learning the operation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program was introduced at the Vattikuti Urology Institute on October 23, 2000. One of 2 surgeons with a combined experience of more than 500 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies performed or supervised the first prostatectomies, training a third surgeon with extensive "open" surgical skills but no laparoscopic experience. The "trained" surgeon then started performing the operation independently with robotic assistance. The results of this approach were analyzed at the end of 12 months. RESULTS: We performed 48 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies and 50 robot assisted prostatectomies within the 12-month period. The preoperative and intraoperative demographical variables were comparable in both groups as were the operative times, changes in hemoglobin concentrations, durations of hospitalization, positive margin rates and overall complication rates. All measured parameters were comparable to the "best-in-class" values for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: A structured approach minimizes complications during the establishment of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program. Robotic assistance helps skilled "open" surgeons learn the technique of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

Robotic‐assisted radical prostatectomy: a review of current outcomes

With the widespread diffusion of the screening for prostate cancer, the disease has been diagnosed more commonly in the organ‐confined stage, and in younger and healthier men. For these patients, radical prostatectomy (RP) is still the standard treatment. In an effort to decrease the morbidity associated with open RP, minimally invasive approaches have been described, including robotic‐assisted RP (RALP). Almost one decade after the introduction of RALP, large and mature series have now been reported. We reviewed the outcomes of the largest series of RALP published recently. We searched Medline for reports published between 2006 and 2009, to identify articles describing intraoperative data, surgical complications, oncological outcomes, continence and potency rates after RALP. Relevant articles were selected and the outcomes evaluated.     

Adequacy of lymphadenectomy among men undergoing robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

OBJECTIVE

To compare rates of lymph node dissection (LND) and nodal yields between patients treated with open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORRP) and robot‐assisted RRP (RARP) in a contemporary single‐institution series.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 1278 consecutive patients (716 ORRP and 562 RARP) from one institution were accrued prospectively in an institutional database, and the data analysed retrospectively. Disease risk was assessed using the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA) score. The likelihood of LND, nodal yield, and likelihood of node positivity were compared between ORRP and RARP.

RESULTS

Of patients treated with ORRP and RARP, 47.8% and 31.8% had LND, respectively, with more receiving LND over time in both surgical approaches. Men undergoing LND had a higher disease risk than those not undergoing LND (mean CAPRA score 4.3 vs 2.1, P < 0.01), and there was no difference in risk between those undergoing ORRP or RARP (mean CAPRA score 3.0 vs 2.9, P = 0.29). The mean (sd ) nodal yield was 14.4 (8.7) for ORRP and 9.3 (5.4) for RARP (P < 0.01). Among patients undergoing LND, 5.8% of ORRP and 4.1% of RARP patients had positive nodes (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The indications for LND and template dissection should be the same regardless of surgical approach. The nodal yield was adequate using both approaches; the yield was higher among ORRP than RARP patients, but the difference was not large, and is less remarkable than the wide variation in yield within each approach. Several factors might explain this variation.     

Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective evaluation of 600 cases

PURPOSE: We report our experience with the extraperitoneal approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We describe the technique, clinical and oncological results, and functional outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From February 2002, to March 2004, 600 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies were performed by an extraperitoneal approach and evaluated prospectively. RESULTS: A total of 599 extraperitoneal procedures were performed successfully. Mean operative time was 173 minutes. Mean operative blood loss was 380 cc. The transfusion rate was 1.2%. The major and minor complications rate was 2.3% and 9.2%, respectively. The reoperation rate was 1.7%. Mean hospital stay was 6.3 days. Pathological stage was pT2 and pT3 in 72% and 28% of cases, respectively. Mean Gleason score was 7. The overall positive margin rate was 17.7% (14.6% and 25.6% of pT2 and pT3 tumors, respectively). Median followup was 12 months. Of the patients 95% had prostate specific antigen less than 0.2 ng/ml. Patients were evaluated by a self-questionnaire sent by mail before and after surgery (International Continence Society and International Index of Erectile Function-5). At a median followup of 12 months 84% of the patients were continent (no pad), 7% used 1 precautionary pad and 7% needed 1 pad routinely. At a median followup of 6 months in preoperatively potent patients (International Index of Erectile Function-5 greater than 20) the postoperative erection and intercourse rate was 64% and 43%, respectively, in those with bilateral nerve bundle preservation. CONCLUSIONS: The extraperitoneal technique is a reliable approach to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

OBJECTIVE: To describe our experience of simultaneous laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) with a non-absorbable mesh, as there are few reports of simultaneous herniorrhaphy during LRP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients who had simultaneous LIHR and LRP were retrospectively reviewed. All operations were completed via antegrade techniques using a non-absorbable mesh for the LIHR, as the results with absorbable mesh were disappointing. RESULTS: In all, 48 clinically apparent hernias were repaired in 40 patients (mean age 60 years). Of these, 13 were left-sided, 23 right-sided, and six bilateral; 19 were direct, 14 indirect, two pantaloon, three femoral, and in 10 the type was not recorded. The mean operative duration was 172 min and the mean hospital stay was 1.5 days. Two patients had a urine leak after surgery, which resolved with no further intervention, and two developed a pelvic lymphocele, one at 4 months and the other at 2 months after surgery. Two patients required urinary catheter re-insertion for retention after surgical catheter removal at 9 and 10 days after surgery, respectively. One patient developed a deep venous thrombosis 19 days after surgery. Of the 40 patients, 36 (90%) were followed for a mean of 10 months; none had a hernia recurrence on the repaired side, while two developed a new symptomatic contralateral hernia. CONCLUSIONS: LIHR is a successful and reliable way to treat symptomatic patients who are treated surgically for prostate cancer.     

改良(免特殊PORT)单孔机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术的初步经验

目的:描述改良(免特殊PORT)单孔机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术手术通道建立的方法及技术路线,并分享前154例手术的临床初步经验.方法:回顾性分析2020年11月-2021年6月四川省人民医院机器人微创中心采用改良(免特殊PORT)单孔机器人辅助腹腔镜前列腺癌根治术治疗的154例前列腺癌患者的病例资料.患者平均年龄(6...     

Perioperative complications of robotic radical prostatectomy after the learning curve

PURPOSE: We assessed the incidence of and analyzed factors that contributed to perioperative complications in patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy, that is Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy (VIP), at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recorded operative and postoperative data on 300 consecutive patients who underwent VIP at our institution during a 1-year period. All operations were performed by 1 of 2 surgeons (MM or JOP). We reviewed the complications seen in these patients. RESULTS: There was no operative mortality and no case was converted to open surgery. A total of 269 (89.7%) patients were considered to have an ideal postoperative course, ie they were discharged home within 48 hours with no unscheduled office visits or complications. There were 14 unscheduled postoperative visits (4.7%) for transient urinary retention after early catheter removal (13) or hematuria (1). There were 17 complications, of which 16 (5.3%) were related to surgery and 1 was related to anesthesia. A total of 11 complications (3.7%) were minor (grade I) and 5 (1.7%) were major (grade II). Of them 3 (1%) patients required reoperation. There were no grade III or IV complications. CONCLUSIONS: In our hands VIP is a safe operation with an overall complication rate of 5.3%, a major complication rate of less than 2% and a surgical re-intervention rate of 1%.     

Open versus robotic radical prostatectomy: a prospective analysis based on a single surgeon’s experience

The background of this study is to compare prospectively the oncological and functional results of open radical prostatectomy (OP) and robotic prostatectomy (RP) from the experience of a single surgeon. Between June 2002 and June 2007, 422 patients underwent radical prostatectomy (OP 199, RP 223). We divided OP patients into 89 early cases (OP-I) and 110 late cases (OP-II) before and after introduction of a robotic system, and RP patients into 35 early cases (RP-I) and 188 late cases (RP-II). Functional outcomes were measured by use of validated questionnaires completed by the patients. There were no significant differences in preoperative characteristics among the four groups, except that RP-I patients had lower biopsy Gleason scores. In the RP groups the mean estimated blood loss was lower and mean durations of hospital stay and bladder catheterization were shorter compared to those of the OP groups. The frequency of intraoperative complications was significantly lower in the RP-II group. The positive surgical margin rates in the RP-II group were similar to or lower than those in the OP groups when stratified by pathologic stage T2 and T3. From one month after surgery, RP-II patients had higher continence rates than OP-II patients. For patients ≥60 years old, recovery of potency was better in the RP-II group. To conclude, RP by an experienced surgeon may have a similar or lower positive surgical margin rate than OP. Additionally, RP may lead to a shorter duration of bladder catheterization and hospital stay and better recovery of continence and potency than obtainable by OP.