İbrahim KARABULUT, Fatih Kürşat YILMAZER, Ali Haydar YILMAZ, Ercüment KESKİN

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A single center initial experience

Aim: The aim of this study is to present the surgical, oncologic and functional results of the first 34 robotic radical prostatectomy(RARP) procedures performed in our clinic.Material and Methods: Data of 34 patients who underwent RARP between July 2017 and October 2019 were evaluated.Results: The mean patient age was 58.73±4.94 years, and the mean preoperative serum prostate-specific antigen level was 8.9±2.07ng/mL. Bilateral neurovascular bundle (NVB) sparing, unilateral NVB-sparing, and non-NVB-sparing surgery were performed in7.5, and 22 cases, respectively. The mean prostate weight was 58.73±26.03g. Anterior reconstruction suture was performed in 22(64.7%) cases. Mean console time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and urethral catheter removal time were195.2±14.03min, 120.3±21.2cc, 7.34±1.62 days, and 7.26±1.26 days, respectively. Biochemi¬cal recurrence was observed in twopatients, one of whom received maximal androgen blockage (MAB), and the other one received pelvic radiotherapy+MAB. All thepatients with at least one-year follow-up were fully continent (0 pads/day). Of the 16 (47%) patients with no preoperative erectiledysfunction (ED) and with at least three-month follow-up, 9 (62.5%) had no ED, with or without any additional medica¬tion includingphosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors.Conclusion: RARP is a safe minimally invasive procedure with acceptable morbidity, excellent operative, pathological and oncologicaloutcomes, and satisfactory functional results.

PDF

___

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67.
2. Sağlık İstatistik Yıllığı 2016 Web site http://www. sağlık.gov.tr.
3. Çimen Hİ, Direk HC, Halis F., ve ark. Sakarya Üniversitesi’nde Robot Yardımlı Laparoskopik Radikal Prostatektomi: Başlangıç Deneyimlerimiz. Sakarya Tıp Dergisi 2017;8:134-40.
4. Schröder FH, Carter HB, Wolters T, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer in 2007. Part 1: PSA and PSA kinetics. Eur Urol 2008;53:468-77.
5. Walsh PC. Anatomic Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy; in Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED, Wein AJ (Eds.): Campbell’s Urology 7th Edition, 1998;2565-88.
6. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: longterm cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 2005;66:83-94.
7. Binder J, Brautigam R, Jonas D, et al. Robotic surgery in urology: fact or fantasy BJU international 2004;94:1183-87.
8. HU, Jim C, et al. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA, 2009;14:1557-64.
9. Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot assisted radical prostatec¬tomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:431-52.
10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical com¬plications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-13.
11. D’Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al. Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clini¬cally localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998;280:969-74.
12. Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, et al. Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatec¬tomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int 2008;101:1145-9.
13. Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R, et al. Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparo¬scopic and open approaches. Urology 2008;72:15-23.
14. Patel VR, Thaly R, Shah K. Robotic radical prostatectomy: out¬comes oj 500 cases. BJU Int 2007;99:1109-12.
15. Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, et al. Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattiku Urology Institute experience. Urology 2002;60:864-8.
16. Hashimoto T, Yoshioka K, Gondo T, et al. Learning curve and perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in 200 initial Japanese cases by a single sur¬geon. J Endourol 2013;27:1218-23.
17. Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, et al. Retropubik, laparoskopik and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009;55:1037-63.
18. Tasci AI, Tufek I, Gumus E, et al. Oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complication rates of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: multicenter experience in Turkey including 1,499 patients. World J Urol 2015;33:1095-102.
19. Frota R, Turna B, Barros R, et al. Comparison of radical pros¬tatectomy techniques: open, laparoscopic and robotic assisted. Int Braz J Urol 2008;34:259-69.
20. Zorn KC, Gofrit ON, Orvieto MA, et al. Robotic- assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol 2007;51:755-63.
21. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: in- sight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982;128:492-7.
22. Tewari AK, Bigelow K, Rao S, Tet al. Anatomic restoration technique of continence mechanism and preservation of puboprostatic collar: a novel modification to achieve early urinary continence in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Urology 2007;69:726-31.
23. Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA, Billatos ES, et al. Roboticassisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: rst 100 patients with one year of follow-up. Urology 2006;68:1275-9.
24. Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J, et al. 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;31:701-7