Önceden hasta başı asistans tecrübesi olan konsol cerrahının robotik radikal prostatektomi sonrası kontinans ve potens sonuçları: ilk 50 vaka

AMAÇ: Daha önceden hasta başı asistanı tecrübesi olan konsol cerrahının robotik radikal prostatektomi fonksiyonel sonuçlarını sunmak. GEREÇ ve YÖNTEM: Eylül 2016 – Temmuz 2018 yılları arasında prostat kanseri nedeniyle robotik radikal prostatektomi operasyonu uygulanan ilk 50 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Postoperatif kontrollerde hiç ped kullanmama yada güvenlik pedi kullanma kontinan, 1 ped kullanımı hafif derecede, 2 ped ve üzeri ise şiddetli derecede inkontinans olarak değerlendirildi. Uluslararası cinsel işlev formu (IIEF5) skoru >21 olan hastalar potent, ≤21 olanlar ise impotent olarak kabul edildi. BULGULAR: Ortalama hasta yaşı 64,06±6,15 ve ortalama takip süresi 14,9±6,9 aydı. Bilateral sinir koruyucu, tek taraflı sinir koruyucu ve sinir korumasız cerrahi sırasıyla 37 (%74), 4 (%8) ve 9 (%18) hastaya uygulandı. Sadece 2 (%4) hastada postoperatif Clavien grade 3 ve üzeri komplikasyon görüldü. Cerrahi sınır pozitifliği 11 (%22) hastada tespit edilirken, 5 (%10) hastada biyokimyasal nüks tespit edildi. Postoperatif 6. ayda 40 (%87) hasta kontinan iken, potent hasta sayısı ise 21 (%45,7) olarak bulundu. SONUÇ: Konsol cerrahisi öncesi hasta başı asistans tecrübesine sahip olmak robotik cerrahinin fonksiyonel sonuçlardaki avantajlarına ek olarak komplikasyon oranlarını da minimalize etmektedir.

Continence and potency outcomes after robotic radical prostatectomy in the hands of console surgeon with previous experience as a bedside assistant: first 50 cases

OBJECTIVES: To present the robotic radical prostatectomy functional results of the console surgeon with previous experience as a bedside assistant. MATERIAL and METHODS: The medical records of the first 50 patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy between September 2016 – July 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Continence was describedOBJECTIVES: To present the robotic radical prostatectomy functional results of the console surgeon with previous experience as a bedside assistant. MATERIAL and METHODS: The medical records of the first 50 patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy between September 2016 – July 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Continence was described as no using pad or using safety pad. Mild incontinence was described as using 1 pad daily while using 2 and more pads described as severe incontinence. Patients with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score >21 were defined as potent, ≤21 were defined as impotent. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.06±6.15 and mean follow-up time was 14.9±6.9 months. Bilaterally, unilaterally and non nerve sparing surgery was performed in 37 (74%), 4 (8%) and 9 (18%) patients, respectively. Clavien grade 3 and higher complication was occurred in only 2 (4%) patients. Surgical margin involvement was detected in 11 (22%) patients and 5 (10%) patients developed biochemical recurrence. Forty (87%) patients were continent and 21 (45.7%) patients were potent at the 6th month postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Having experience as a bedside assistant before console surgery also minimizes complication rates in addition to the advantagesOBJECTIVES: To present the robotic radical prostatectomy functional results of the console surgeon with previous experience as a bedside assistant. MATERIAL and METHODS: The medical records of the first 50 patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy between September 2016 – July 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Continence was described as no using pad or using safety pad. Mild incontinence was described as using 1 pad daily while using 2 and more pads described as severe incontinence. Patients with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score >21 were defined as potent, ≤21 were defined as impotent. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.06±6.15 and mean follow-up time was 14.9±6.9 months. Bilaterally, unilaterally and non nerve sparing surgery was performed in 37 (74%), 4 (8%) and 9 (18%) patients, respectively. Clavien grade 3 and higher complication was occurred in only 2 (4%) patients. Surgical margin involvement was detected in 11 (22%) patients and 5 (10%) patients developed biochemical recurrence. Forty (87%) patients were continent and 21 (45.7%) patients were potent at the 6th month postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Having experience as a bedside assistant before console surgery also minimizes complication rates in addition to the advantages of robotic surgery in functional outcomes. of robotic surgery in functional outcomes. as no using pad or using safety pad. Mild incontinence was described as using 1 pad daily while using 2 and more pads described as severe incontinence. Patients with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) score >21 were defined as potent, ≤21 were defined as impotent. RESULTS: Mean age was 64.06±6.15 and mean follow-up time was 14.9±6.9 months. Bilaterally, unilaterally and non nerve sparing surgery was performed in 37 (74%), 4 (8%) and 9 (18%) patients, respectively. Clavien grade 3 and higher complication was occurred in only 2 (4%) patients. Surgical margin involvement was detected in 11 (22%) patients and 5 (10%) patients developed biochemical recurrence. Forty (87%) patients were continent and 21 (45.7%) patients were potent at the 6th month postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Having experience as a bedside assistant before console surgery also minimizes complication rates in addition to the advantages of robotic surgery in functional outcomes.

PDF

___

Mottet N, Belmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017;71:618–29. [CrossRef]
Mohler JL, Armstrong AJ, Bahnson RR, D’Amico AV, Davis BJ, Eastham JA, et al. Prostate cancer, version 1.2016. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2016;14:19–30. [CrossRef]
Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, Albertsen PC, Goodman M, Hamilton AS, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:436–45. [CrossRef]
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carrol PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405–17. [CrossRef]
Moran PS, O’Neil M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int J Urol 2013;20:312–21. [CrossRef]
Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal AK. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am 2004;31:701–17. [CrossRef]
Sejima T, Masago T, Morizane S, Hikita K, Kobayashi N, Yao A, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a case series of the first 100 patients’ constitutional introduction and implementation on the basis of comprehensive department of minimal invasive surgery center. BMC Res Notes 2013;6:436. [CrossRef]
Nilsson AE, Carlsson S, LAven BA, Wiklund NP. Karolinska prostatectomy: a robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2006;40:453–8. [CrossRef]
Ficarra V, Cavelleri S, Novara G, Aragona M, Artibani W. Evidence from robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2007;51:45–56. [CrossRef]
Salomon L, Saint F, Anastasiadis AG, Sebe P, Chopin D, Abbou CC. Combined reporting of cancer control and functional results of radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2003;44:656–60. [CrossRef]
Fossati N, Di Trapani E, Gandagli G, Dell’Oglio P, Umari P, Buffi NM, et al. Assessing the impact of surgeon experience on urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: results of four high volume surgeons. J Endourol 2017;31:872–7. [CrossRef]
Çimen Hİ, Atik YT, Altınova S, Adsan O, Balbay MD. Does the experience of the bedside assistant effect the results of robotic surgeons in the learning curve of robot assisted radical prostatectomy? Int Braz J Urol 2019;45:54–60. [CrossRef]
Çimen Hİ, Sağlam HS. Robotik prostat cerrahisi ve cinsel fonksiyon. Androl Bull 2016;18:79–82. Erişim: https://www. journalagent.com/androloji/pdfs/AND_18_65_79_82.pdf
Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Skarecky D. Rapid communication: early potency outcomes with cautery-free neurovascular bundle preservation with robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2005;19:715–8. [CrossRef]
Ahlering TE, Rodriguez E, Skarecky DW. Overcoming obstacles: nerve-sparing issues in radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2008;22:745–50. [CrossRef]
Samadi DB, Muntner P, Nabizada-Pace F, Brajtbord JS, Carlucci J, Lavery HJ. Improvements in robot-assisted prostatectomy: the effect of surgeon experience and technical changes on oncologic and functional outcomes. J Endourol 2010;24:1105–10. [CrossRef]
Finley DS, Chang A, Morales B, Osann K, Skarecky D, Ahlering T. Impact of regional hypothermia on urinary continence and potency after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2010;24:1111–6. [CrossRef]
Kowalczyk KJ, Huang AC, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Yu HY, Ulmer WD, et al. Stepwise approach for nerve sparing without countertraction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 2011;60:536–47. [CrossRef]
Alemozaffar M, Duclos A, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Borza T, Yu HY, et al. Technical refinement and learning curve for attenuating neuropraxia during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy to improve sexual function. Eur Urol 2012;61:1222–8. [CrossRef]
Shikanov S, Woo J, Al-Ahmadie H, Katz MH, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL, Zorn KC. Extrafascial versus interfascial nervesparing technique for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy comparison of functional outcomes and positive surgical margin characteristics. Urology 2009;74:611–6. [CrossRef]
Patel V, Thaly R, Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: outcomes of 500 cases. BJU Int 2007;99:1109–12. [CrossRef]
Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, Mikhail AA, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathological outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol 2007;51:755–63. [CrossRef]
Canda AE, Atmaca AF, Akbulut Z, Asil E, Kılıç M, İşgören AE, Balbay MD. Results of robotic radical prostatectomy in the hands of surgeons without previous laparoscopic radical prostatectomy experience. Turk J Med Sci 2012;42:1338–46. [CrossRef]
Kural AR, Atuğ F. The applications of robotic surgery in urology. Turk J Urol 2010;36:248–57. [CrossRef]
Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol 2009;56:472–8. [CrossRef]
Sfoungaristos S, Kontogiannis S, Perimenis P. Early continence recovery after preservation of maximal urethral length until the level of verumontanum during radical prostatectomy: primary oncological and functional outcomes after 1 year of follow-up. Biomed Res Int 2013;2013:426208. [CrossRef]
Hakimi AA, Faleck DM, Agalliu I, Rozenblit AM, Chernyak V, Ghavamian R. Preoperative and intraoperative measurements of urethral length as predictors of continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2011;25:1025–30. [CrossRef]
Ahlerin TE, Wood D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW. Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 2004;63:819–22. [CrossRef]