Prostatectomía radical robótica: análisis después de 100 casos en la fundació puigvert

ObjectiveWe present the 100 first robotic radical prostatectomy with Da Vinci (RRPdaV), corresponding to the first experience in Spain.methodsWe reviewed the first 100 patients that underwent transperitoneal RRPda performed in Fundació Puigvert between July 2005 and January 2007. All cases were performed by 5 surgeons, being the learning curve for all of them. We analyzed surgical time, blood loss, conversion rate, intra and postoperative complications, hospital stay and days of bladder catheterization. Also, rates and location of surgical margins, as well as functional outcomes with an average follow up of 10.3 months.ResultsMean operating time was 180 minutes (100-310) and blood loss 210 mL (100-390). Blood transfusion was required in 2 cases. There were no intraoperative complications and neither any conversion to open surgery. There were 3 outstanding postoperative events, a compartmentalize syndrome, an acute urinary retention after removal of urethral catheter, and a paresthesias due to brachial plexus compression. Mean hospital stay were 3.7 days. (2-21). We had 21 cases of positive surgical margins (21%). The most frequent location was posterior lateral. 69 of 100 patients (69%) reached early (<3 months) total continence, 91% achieved in 9 months, and remaining 9% required use of at least one pad. Concerning to sexual function, 13 of 100 patients (13%) had preoperative erectile dysfunction, of remaining cases, 62% preserved potency at review, and 38% had postoperative erectile dysfunction.ConclusionsRRPDAv is a safe and reproducible procedure, and offers promising oncological and functional results with a minimal invasive technique. In spite of include the learning curve of 5 surgeons; we obtain an excellent rate of continence, and an acceptable sexual function. The individual improvement, with more experience, and a longer follow-up, will allow to value evolution of the technique, and it results.     

A Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes Between Single-port and Multiport Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy

Single-port (SP) robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) appears to be a safe and feasible approach for radical prostatectomy, but no prior studies have compared SP-RALP to a multiport (MP) platform. Using retrospective data from a single-center tertiary institution we compare 50 consecutive SP-RALP patients (da Vinci SP) to a contemporary cohort of 113 patients who underwent MP-RALP (da Vinci Xi). We found no significant differences in surgical or total operating room time. Pain scores were measured on a scale from 0 to 10. There were more pain-free patients on postoperative day 1 (18% difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.9–27%) and there were shorter hospital stays (−1 d, 95% CI −1.0 to 0) in favor of SP. There were no significant differences in inpatient total morphine equivalents used, complication rates, or stress incontinence determined at a minimum of 90 d. These findings show that the learning curve for SP-RALP is relatively short for an experienced robotic surgeon and may favor better pain control and shorter hospitalization.Patient summaryWe analyzed the differences in robotic surgery for localized prostate cancer using a single-port robotic platform compared to the traditional multiport robotic platform. We did not find significant differences in operative times, but significantly more patients were pain-free on the first postoperative day and had shorter hospital stays.     

The Role of Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in the Era of Robotic Surgery

ContextIn the United States, >70% of all radical prostatectomies are performed by use of the da Vinci robot. In Europe, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) still plays a significant role.ObjectiveTo evaluate the actual and future position of LRP based on the current literature and personal experience with robotic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.Evidence acquisitionPubMed and Medline were used to review the recent literature focusing on ergonomic aspects, marketing, and current functional and oncologic results of both procedures as well as of the open counterpart.Evidence synthesisThe advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) are mainly related to ergonomic aspects of the procedure, such as the sitting position of the surgeon and the clutch function that enables comfortable handling of the manipulators. Laparoscopic surgery would benefit from significant improvements in ergonomics, such as a chair for the surgeon, specially designed operating room tables, and ergonomically designed instrument handles. Future modifications of the laparoscopic technique, such as a single-port surgery (eg, laparoendoscopic single-site surgery [LESS]), may also have an impact on the application and use of LRP.ConclusionsRALP is here to stay mainly due to improved ergonomics resulting in a shorter learning curve. Ergonomics of laparoscopy require significant improvement, including the design of new operating room tables, supports for the surgeon with integrated foot pedals, mobile high-definition television monitors, and new instrument handles to minimise mental and physical stress. Implementing the latter to such new approaches as LESS will close the gap between robot-assisted and pure laparoscopic surgery.     

A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience

PURPOSE: We compared a single institution experience with radical prostatectomy using a pure laparoscopic technique vs a robotically assisted technique with regard to preoperative, intraoperative or postoperative parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2003 to May 2005 we reviewed 133 consecutive patients who underwent extraperitoneal robot assisted radical prostatectomy and compared them to 133 match-paired patients treated with a pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach. The patients were matched for age, body mass index, previous abdominopelvic surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, prostate specific antigen, pathological stage and Gleason score. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data, including complications and oncological results, were analyzed between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically similar with respect to age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score and clinical stage. No statistical differences were observed regarding operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay or bladder catheterization between the 2 groups. The transfusion rate was 3% and 9.8% for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.03). Conversion from robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was necessary in 4 cases. None of the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy cases required conversion to an open technique. The percentage of major complications was 6.0% vs 6.8%, respectively (p = 0.80). The overall positive margin rate was 15.8% vs 19.5% for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that the laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy is equivalent to the robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in the hands of skilled laparoscopic urological surgeons at our institution with respect to operative time, operative blood loss, hospital stay, length of bladder catheterization and positive margin rate.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technical aspects and experience with 125 cases

PURPOSE: The laparoscopic access for radical prostatectomy offers an alternative to the open surgical procedure with less morbidity. We report on our experience with 125 laparoscopic prostatectomies, especially with respect to making the laparoscopic approach a routine procedure and with a view to the oncological and functional results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From June 1999 to September 2000, we performed 125 laparoscopic prostatectomies. These included only patients with cancer stages T1 or T2. The mean PSA concentration was 10.5 ng/ml. Forty-four percent of the patients had undergone previous abdominal and 19% previous transurethral surgery. For our laparoscopic prostatectomies we used the descending technique. Free-hand laparoscopic suturing and in situ knot-tying technique were used for the urethrovesical anastomosis. The mobilized specimens were removed in an endobag via a muscle splitting incision. RESULTS: All 125 procedures could be completed successfully. No case required conversion to open surgery. The average operating time was 255 min, the last 40 procedures taking 200 min only. Mean blood loss was 185 ml. Two patients (2%) required postoperative blood transfusion. After an initial learning curve, catheter remained in place for an average of 5.5 days, and the average postoperative stay in hospital was 8 days. Intraoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (4%). In 13 patients (10.4%) postoperative complications were observed. 86% of the patients are continent 6 months postoperatively. Preservation of the neurovascular bundle and sexual potency is possible. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is an ambitious procedure with a steep learning curve, especially for the laparoscopic dissecting and suturing technique. The excellent sight for dissection results in a reduced blood loss and faster convalescence with an overall lower morbidity. Also with regard to oncological and functional (continence) results the minimally invasive access is at least equivalent to the open procedure. In our opinion, laparoscopic prostatectomy will be the future method of choice for radical prostatectomy.     

Does robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy enable to obtain adequate oncological and functional outcomes during the learning curve? From the Korean experience

To estimate the short-term results of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) during the learning curve, in terms of surgical, oncological and functional outcomes, we conducted a prospective survey on RALRP. From July 2007, a single surgeon performed 63 robotic prostatectomies using the same operative technique. Perioperative data, including pathological and early functional results of the patient, were collected prospectively and analyzed. Along with the accumulation of the cases, the total operative time, setup time, console time and blood loss were significantly decreased. No major complication was present in any patient. Transfusion was needed in six patients; all of them were within the initial 15 cases. The positive surgical margin rate was 9.8% (5/51) in pT2 disease. The most frequent location of positive margin in this stage was the lateral aspect (60%), but in pT3 disease multiple margins were the most frequent (41.7%). Overall, 53 (84.1%) patients had totally continent status and the median time to continence was 6.56 weeks. Among 17 patients who maintained preoperative sexual activity (Sexual Health Inventory for Men ≥ 17), stage below pT2, followed up for > 6 months with minimally one side of neurovascular bundle preservation procedure, 12 (70.6%) were capable of intercourse postoperatively, and the mean time for sexual intercourse after operation was 5.7 months. In this series, robotic prostatectomy was a feasible and reproducible technique, with a short learning curve and low perioperative complication rate. Even during the initial phase of the learning curve, satisfactory results were obtained with regard to functional and oncological outcome.     

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 radical prostatectomy in Greece: the learning curve and beyond. The initial 40 cases

Radical prostatectomy is the treatment of choice for management of organ-confined prostate cancer. Minimally invasive treatments, as an alternative, have refined been recently by the introduction of da Vinci robotic technology which has the potential to improve surgical outcomes and reduce the steep learning curve associated with conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We report on our experience with robotic radical prostatectomy using the first da Vinci robotic system in our country. During 8 months, 40 robotic radical prostatectomies were performed by a single surgical team at Athens Medical Centre (Marousi, Greece). Preoperative data collection included basic demographics, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage, and Gleason score. Operative outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications. Postoperative outcomes included hospital stay, pain, catheter time, pathology, PSA, return of continence, and potency. Average operative time was 186.25 min with an estimated mean blood loss of 135 ml. There were no intra-operative complications. Ninety per cent of the patients were discharged home on postoperative day 1 with mean haematocrit 36.7 (range 29–43). All patients reported minimal postoperative pain and resumed regular diet on the first postoperative day. Average catheter time was 6.6 days (range 5–10). Early continence was observed in 47.5% of the patients, seven days after catheter removal. Continence at 1, 3, and 6 months was 75, 82.5 and 95%, respectively. The overall positive margin rate was 17.5%. Ninety-five per cent of the patients had undetectable postoperative PSA levels (less than 0.1 ng/ml) at a median follow-up of 6 months. Our initial experience with robotic radical prostatectomy is very promising. The learning curve was approximately 10–12 cases. With a methodical approach we were able to implement the method safely and effectively in our practice, combining minimal morbidity with good oncological and functional outcomes.     

Cistoprostatectomía radical robótica: análisis oncológico y funcional

IntroductionThe da Vinci robotic laparoscopic surgery, has been shown in radical prostatectomy, optimal functional and oncological results with a lower learning curve, greater comfort and vision for the surgeon, and proper preservation of the neurovascular bundles. This has led to begin the experience with robotic radical cystectomy (RRC).ObjectivesReview our initial experience in CRR, evaluating surgical and functional results obtained, and also immediate and short-term complications.Material and methodsBetween December 2007 and January 2009 we performed nine robotic radical cystoprostatectomy and in seven patients robotic lymphadenectomy (LDN). Five patients had a muscle-invasive disease and 4 non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. The median age was 57 years (range 34-81). Urinary diversion was performed extracorporeally in all cases, 3 cases an ileal conduit and 6 an Studer neobladder in 3 of these 6 cases, the urethra-neobladder anastomosis was performed intracorporeally.ResultsThe average time of surgery was 300 minutes (range 280-420) in the ileal conduit and 360 (range 330-540) in the Studer. No cases required conversion or blood transfusion. The median number of nodes removed by LDN robotics was 10 (range 6-18). The pathology revealed 3 pT0, 2 CIS, 3 pT3, 1 pT4b (positive margins). With a median follow up of 7 months there have been no peritoneal implant and only one ureteral stenosis. Oral diet was initiated in 5 cases at 48 hours. Of the 6 patients with preserved sexual function preoperatively and followup of more than 3 months, 2 had full erection at 1 month, 2 at 3 and 6 months, and the remaining 2 presented with a full erection with 5 PD inhibitors at 3 and 9 months. All patients with neobladder presented correct daytime continence. The average hospital stay was 8.5 days (range 7-19).ConclusionsThe radical robotic cystectomy with extracorporeal reconstruction of the urinary diversion offers good early functional and surgical outcomes. The careful preservation of the neurovascular bundles in radical pelvic surgery provides excellent results in urinary and sexual function.     

Evolución de la cirugía abierta versus laparoscópica/robótica: 10 años de cambios en Urología

IntroductionLaparoscopic surgery has been increasingly used in urology in recent years. Laparoscopy has been performed at our center since 2001. Changes over time in the indication of open versus laparoscopic/robotic surgery, hospital stay, and learning curve are reviewed.Materials and methodsA retrospective review of our database from 1997 to the end of 2007. A total of 3622 procedures were performed during this time (endoscopic procedures were excluded): 67,75% open, 26,17% laparoscopic, 2,29% perineal, and 3,78% robotic surgeries. Of these, 83,79% were performed in males and 16,20% in females. Mean patient age was 58,8 years. Data from the study period, including mean hospital stay and changes over time in operating time as a function of the learning curve, were analyzed and compared to data for the last 12 months of the study period.ResultsThe percentages of all surgical procedures performed using a laparoscopic approach in the 1997–2006 versus the last 12 study months were as follows: nephrectomy, 31,8% versus 74,7%; living donor nephrectomy, 93% versus 100%; nephroureterectomy, 28,1% vs. 93,4%; partial nephrectomy, 31,3% vs 87%; and radical prostatectomy, 17,6% versus 73,5% including laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Shorter mean hospital stays and operating times were also seen.ConclusionsUse of the laparoscopic approach has greatly increased in the 10-year period studied. In renal surgery, few indications remain for open surgery. In prostate surgery, introduction of robotic surgery in 2005 and learning of laparoscopy by several of our urologists have dramatically changed the therapeutic approach. Gradual incorporation of laparoscopic surgery has led to a decreased hospital stay and to a shortening of the learning curve.     

The advanced learning curve in robotic prostatectomy: a multi-institutional survey

Several studies have attempted to define the learning curve associated with robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). These studies have focused on the acquisition of skills by novice robotic surgeons. It is unclear, however, if basic proficiency can be equated with satisfactory patient outcomes. We surveyed experienced robotic surgeons with high surgical volume in an attempt to define an “advanced” learning curve, relating to proficiency and outcomes with the robotic procedure. A questionnaire was designed to evaluate the learning curve of the RALP from basic to advanced techniques. High-volume, experienced surgeons were asked to complete this questionnaire on the basis of their personal experience with the RALP procedure. Nine institutions participated in the study accounting for a total case volume of 6,276. Median surgeon experience was 460 cases (range 325–1,500); median total operative and robotic time were 165 and 105 min, respectively. Median time to “basic proficiency” with the robot was 40 cases; proficiency in more challenging cases was approached after a median of 50 cases. Surgical outcomes were deemed satisfactory to the surgeon for continence, potency, and surgical margins after a median of 100, 200, and 300 procedures, respectively. These data confirm previous studies that basic proficiency with the robotic system occurs relatively quickly, after 25–40 cases. Obtaining “satisfactory outcomes” took substantially longer, from 100 to 300 cases. Satisfactory outcomes regarding surgical margins and potency took longer to obtain than continence, likely reflecting the relative complexity of cancer control and nerve-sparing compared with the vesico-urethral anastomosis.     

Team-based approach reduces learning curve in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

AIM: We assessed the team approach in reducing the learning curve during our 2-year experience transiting from open to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (rLRP). METHODS: A team of three urologists progressed through assistant phase to console phase to obtain competency in robotic prostatectomy. One hundred patients underwent rLRP by this team using the da Vinci robotic surgical system from 1 February 2003 to 15 May 2005. RESULTS: The immediate perioperative outcome was divided into three corresponding time frames and the results demonstrated gradual improvement in outcome parameters. The mean set-up time and dissection time were 24+/-14 min and 182+/-52 min, respectively. The mean perioperative blood loss was 272+/-240 mL, and 7% of patients (n=7) required blood transfusion. The mean duration of bladder catheterization was 8.4+/-4.1 days, and mean hospital stay was 2.9+/-1.6 days. There was no perioperative mortality or conversion to open radical prostatectomy. Major complications (4%) included urethrovesical leak requiring re-operation, postoperative cerebrovascular accident, and transient ureteric obstruction. Minor complications (7%) included minor urethrovesical leak, bladder neck stenosis, and urinary tract infection. Mean follow up was 6.6+/-5.0 months. Pathological assessment showed pT2 disease in 55% and pT3 in 45% of specimens. CONCLUSIONS: A team-based approach to robot-assisted LRP helped to reduce the learning curve of the procedure for individual surgeons and continued to show significantly lower perioperative blood loss, transfusion requirements and postoperative pain compared to open radical retropubic prostatectomy.     

Robot-assisted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Background Robotic surgery promises to extend the capabilities of the minimally invasive surgeon. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of robotic surgery in the setting of laparoscopic gastric bypass.Methods The Zeus robotic surgical system was used in 50 laparoscopic gastric bypass procedures. The learning curve was staged to add complexity to the robotic tasks as experience grew. Robotic setup time, robotic operative time, total operative time, and operative outcomes were tracked prospectively.Results We observed a significant decrease in the robotic setup time. Our robotic learning curve demonstrated decreased operative time, even as more complex tasks were accomplished. Total operative time also decreased significantly over the series. There were no complications in our series that could be attributed to the robotic technique.Conclusions Robot-assisted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe. The steadiness and extra degrees of freedom of surgical robotic systems may improve the accuracy of laparoscopic tasks. The learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is significant but manageable.Presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointesinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), Denver, CO, USA, 1 April 2004     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate our preliminary experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The indications for laparoscopy are currently being extended to complex oncologic procedures. METHODS: Forty-three men underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We used five trocars. The surgical technique replicates the steps of traditional retropubic prostatectomy, except that the rectoprostatic cleavage plane is developed transperitoneally at the beginning of the procedure. In the first 10 patients, we performed the vesicourethral reconstruction with interrupted sutures; in the remaining 33 patients, we performed it with two hemicircumferential running sutures. The specimen was removed through the umbilical port site. RESULTS: Once the developmental phase with the first 10 patients was concluded, the median operating time was 4.3 hours without pelvic lymphadenectomy, and the median postoperative bladder catheterization was 4 days. Two (4.7%) of 43 patients underwent transfusion. Twelve patients (27.9%) had positive surgical margins; all patients had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen level of less than 0.1 ng/mL at 1 month. Rectal injury occurred in 1 patient, requiring colostomy, and 4 patients had urethrovesical anastomotic leakages requiring surgical repair. One month postoperatively, 36 patients (84%) were fully continent (no leakage). Six patients had had erections, and four stated they had had sexual intercourse. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has evolved to a fully standardized and reproducible procedure. The short-term oncologic and functional efficacy rates are equivalent to those for open surgery. The operating time is reasonable once the learning curve is over, and postoperative morbidity is diminished. Because of the improved visual accuracy, permitting more precise dissection, this technique has the potential to become an important advancement in urologic surgery.     

Identificación de parámetros pronósticos relativos a la técnica quirúrgica en pacientes tratados mediante prostatectomía radical robótica

Introduction and objectiveThe most frequently studied factors in patients treated by robotic radical prostatectomy are PSA and pathological features of the biopsy and prostatectomy specimen.Studies on the factors associated with the surgical technique are scarce and with controversial results. The objective is to identify all possible surgical factors and their relationship with disease-free and metastasis-free survival.Patients and MethodProspective study approved by the Ethics Committee, including patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy since January 2009 with a minimum follow-up of 5 years.Surgeon, surgical time, blood loss, fascial access, continence techniques, preservation of the fascia, neurovascular bundles, bladder neck, urethra, learning curve and surgical complications, were analyzed as possible prognostic factors.We performed univariate and matched comparisons of survival using Kaplan-Meier estimation and long-rank tests. The significance level for multiple comparisons was established with False Discovery Rate-adjustment (adjusted p).ResultsCohort of 667 patients with a median follow-up of 69 months.In univariate analysis, surgeon (adjp = 0.018), preservation of puboprostatic ligaments (adjp = 0.02), preservation of endopelvic fascia (adjp = 0.001) and performing periurethral suspension (adjp < 0.001) are poor prognostic factors for disease-free survival. Fascia preservation also negatively affects metastasis-free survival (adjp = 0.04).Previous abdominal surgeries, prostate, surgical time, blood loss, type of residual urethra, middle lobe, fascial access, fascia or bladder neck preservation, have no statistical significance.ConclusionsThe surgeon and specific aspects of the surgical technique are determining factors in disease-free survival. Preservation of the fascia is the only factor that negatively affects metastasis-free survival.     

Assessing the cost effectiveness of robotics in urological surgery – a systematic review

Study Type – Therapy (systematic review) Level of Evidence 1a What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Research on the subject has shown that robotic surgery is more costly than both laparoscopic and open approaches due to the initial cost of purchase, annual maintenance and disposable instruments. However, both robotic and laparoscopic approaches have reduced blood loss and hospital stay and robotic procedures have better short term post‐operative outcomes such as continence and sexual function. Some studies indicate that the robotic approach may have a shorter learning curve. However, factors such as reduced learning curve, shorter hospital stay and reduced length of surgery are currently unable to compensate for the excess costs of robotic surgery. This review concludes that robotic surgery should be targeted for cost efficiency in order to fully reap the benefits of this advanced technology. The excess cost of robotic surgery may be compensated by improved training of surgeons and therefore a shorter learning curve; and minimising costs of initial purchase and maintenance. The review finds that only a few studies gave an itemised breakdown of costs for each procedure, making accurate comparison of costs difficult. Furthermore, there is a lack of long term follow up of clinical outcomes, making it difficult to accurately assess long term post‐operative outcomes. A breakdown of costs and studies of long term outcomes are needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of robotic surgery in urology.

OBJECTIVES

• ? Although robotic technology is becoming increasingly popular for urological procedures, barriers to its widespread dissemination include cost and the lack of long term outcomes. This systematic review analyzed studies comparing the use of robotic with laparoscopic and open urological surgery.
• ? These three procedures were assessed for cost efficiency in the form of direct as well as indirect costs that could arise from length of surgery, hospital stay, complications, learning curve and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

• ? A systematic review was performed searching Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers identified abstracts using online databases and independently reviewed full length papers suitable for inclusion in the study.

RESULTS

• ? Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy are superior with respect to reduced hospital stay (range 1–1.76 days and 1–5.5 days, respectively) and blood loss (range 482–780 mL and 227–234 mL, respectively) when compared with the open approach (range 2–8 days and 1015 mL). Robot assisted radical prostatectomy remains more expensive (total cost ranging from US $2000–$39 215) than both laparoscopic (range US $740–$29 771) and open radical prostatectomy (range US $1870–$31 518).
• ? This difference is due to the cost of robot purchase, maintenance and instruments. The reduced length of stay in hospital (range 1–1.5 days) and length of surgery (range 102–360 min) are unable to compensate for the excess costs.
• ? Robotic surgery may require a smaller learning curve (20–40 cases) although the evidence is inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

• ? Robotic surgery provides similar postoperative outcomes to laparoscopic surgery but a reduced learning curve.
• ? Although costs are currently high, increased competition from manufacturers and wider dissemination of the technology could drive down costs.
• ? Further trials are needed to evaluate long term outcomes in order to evaluate fully the value of all three procedures in urological surgery.

     

Oncologic,Functional, and Cost Analysis of Open,Laparoscopic, and Robotic Radical Prostatectomy

ContextAlthough open radical retropubic prostatectomy (ORRP) remains the gold standard, the past years have seen a rise in both laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), and many patients seem to prefer the so-called minimally invasive procedures despite insufficient data demonstrating superiority over the established standard (ORRP).ObjectiveThis article seeks to review the most recent data on a variety of aspects of the different techniques for performing prostatectomies, such as cost, oncologic outcomes, continence, quality of life, and marketing and propaganda as well as the learning curve for each.Evidence acquisitionA search of the most recent literature was performed using PubMed, and data from lectures and presentations given at international conferences were used.Evidence synthesisThe review showed that, overall, LRP and RARP outcomes have not proved superior to ORRP outcomes or resulted in anticipated benefits to patients. In addition, current data seem to suggest that results of any of the procedures depend more on the surgeon's ability than on the approach, with rates of blood loss, positive surgical margins, incontinence, and erectile dysfunction varying widely from surgeon to surgeon with all three techniques. The aggressive marketing associated with RARP has also led to significantly higher rates of dissatisfaction and regret in patients.ConclusionsConsidering the evidence, ORRP remains the gold standard in radical prostatectomies. Moreover, although the differences among major outcomes are minor and associated with shorter lengths of stay, the costs associated with LRP and RARP are significantly higher than with ORRP. In the absence of solid scientific evidence, patient education, and counselling are crucial parts of the decision-making process, during which patients will opt for one treatment over another.     

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: six months of fellowship training doesn't prevent the learning curve when incorporating into a lower volume practice

IntroductionTo assess whether 6 months of standard laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) training reduces the learning curve.MethodsA single urologist (JAB) performed two 3-month fellowships at medical centers with high-volume LRP surgeons (Thomas Jefferson University, 2002 and Massachusetts General Hospital, 2003). He participated in 29 transperitoneal and 23 extraperitoneal LRPs, performing part or all (2) of 28 cases. He subsequently initiated a LRP program at our institution in July 2003, performing 32 procedures between July 2003 and June 2006 (excluding a 3-month 2004 robotic surgery sabbatical). Six residents served as assistant.ResultsMedian patient age, BMI, and preoperative PSA were 58 (46–71) years, 30 (21–37), and 5.4 (3.2–13.6) ng/ml, respectively. Median estimated blood loss (EBL) and operative time were 400 (50–1700) ml and 411 (282–652) minutes. Median hospital stay, catheterization, and follow-up were 2 (1–12) days, 15 (8–52) days, and 10 (1–30) months, respectively. Ten (31%) and 6 (19%) underwent pelvic lymphadenectomy and open conversion. Five patients (16%) received transfusion. Twenty-three (72%) were pathologic stage pT2 and 9 (28%) pT3. Thirteen, 15, and 3 specimens were Gleason 6, 7, and ≥8, respectively. Fifteen (47%) had positive surgical margins (14 apical and 7 other sites). Nineteen (59%) had complications and 4 (12.5%) salvage radiation therapy. Of 20 patients followed 12 months, 12 (60%) are continent (pad free) and 4 (27%) potent patients remain so with or without PDE5 inhibitor.ConclusionSix months of training (52 cases, 28 as surgeon for part or all) did not alleviate the LRP learning curve.     

Anaesthesia for robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy. Experience at a single institution

Robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy is an emerging technique for management of prostate cancer It requires a coordinated approach by anaesthetist and surgeon as the surgery is performed using a modified laparoscopic technique and is potentially of long duration in a Trendelenberg position. We describe some aspects of the surgical technique and our anaesthetic approach with the first 40 cases at our institution. The mean hospital stay was 4.2 days and none of the patients required blood transfusion. A retrospective audit indicated that the use of epidural analgesia in the early postoperative period reduced opioid analgesic requirements.     

腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术的学习曲线

目的探讨腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术的学习曲线。方法回顾分析2004年1月～2011年5月我院由同一医师完成的180例腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术的临床资料。按手术先后顺序分为4组（A、B、C、D组）,每组45例,比较各组手术时间、出血量、切缘阳性率、输血率、术后住院时间、并发症发生率。结果中转开放率为1.1%（2/180）,均发生在A组。A组手术时间为（284.5±67.7）min,显著长于B组（213.7±42.6）min（q=9.491,P〈0.05）,C组（229.7±40.9）min（q=7.346,P〈0.05）和D组（235.4±42.6）min（q=6.582,P〈0.05）。输血率由A组的18.6%（8/43）,下降至B组4.4%（2/45）,C组6.7%（3/45）和D组2.2%（1/45）（χ2=9.637,P=0.022）。A组术后住院时间中位数12 d（5～60 d）,显著长于B组9 d（5～36 d）,C组10 d（6～60 d）和D组10 d（4～38 d）（Z值分别为-2.600,-1.993,-2.112,P值分别为0.009,0.046,0.035）。A组出血量为中位数300 ml（100～3000 ml）,显著多于B组200 ml（50～1200 ml）（Z=-3.050,P=0.002）和D组150 ml（30～700 ml）（Z=-4.060,P=0.001）。4组切缘阳性率及并发症发生率并无显著差异（χ2=0.907,P=0.824;χ2=0.270,P=0.966）。结论腹腔镜前列腺根治性切除术的学习曲线大致为45例。