Feasibility of robotic assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer: A single institution case series.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer involving prostate has been performed via open surgery. Robotic pelvic exenteration offers benefits of better pelvic visualisation and dissection for bladder preserving prostatectomy with vesicourethral anastomosis, while achieving clear margins. AIM: To determine the feasibility of robotic assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration. METHODS: We describe robotic assisted pelvic exenteration in three cases of locally advanced rectal cancer involving prostate and seminal vesicles (SV). The da Vinci S robotic system was used. Robotic console was docked at left oblique position for abdominal phase and redocked to between the patient's legs for pelvic phase. All three cases were performed fully robotically at Tan Tock Seng Hospital by colorectal and urological teams. RESULTS: Case 1: 67-year-old with low rectal tumour 3cm from anal verge involving the prostate. He underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and robotic abdominoperineal resection with en-bloc prostatectomy. Case 2: 66-year-old with low rectal tumour 3cm from anal verge involving prostate and bilateral SV. He underwent neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and robot assisted ultra-low anterior resection with coloanal anastomosis and en-bloc prostatectomy. Case 3: 57-year-old with metachronous rectal tumour in the rectovesical pouch inseparable from the anterior mid rectum, prostate and bilateral SV. He underwent robot assisted ultra-low anterior resection with en-bloc prostatectomy. Bladder neck margin revealed cauterized tumour cells, and he underwent total cystectomy and ileal conduit creation. Histology revealed no residual tumour. All patients are currently disease free. CONCLUSION: Robot assisted bladder sparing pelvic exenteration can be safely performed in locally advanced rectal cancer with acceptable surgical outcome while preserving benefits of minimally invasive surgery.

Management of urethral atrophy after implantation of artificial urinary sphincter: what are the weaknesses?

The use of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence has become more prevalent, especially in the "prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-era", when more patients are treated for localized prostate cancer. The first widely accepted device was the AMS 800, but since then, other devices have also entered the market. While efficacy has increased with improvements in technology and technique, and patient satisfaction is high, AUS implantation still has inherent risks and complications of any implant surgery, in addition to the unique challenges of urethral complications that may be associated with the cuff. Furthermore, the unique nature of the AUS, with a control pump, reservoir, balloon cuff, and connecting tubing, means that mechanical complications can also arise from these individual parts. This article aims to present and summarize the current literature on the management of complications of AUS, especially urethral atrophy. We conducted a literature search on PubMed from January 1990 to December 2018 on AUS complications and their management. We review the various potential complications and their management. AUS complications are either mechanical or nonmechanical complications. Mechanical complications usually involve malfunction of the AUS. Nonmechanical complications include infection, urethral atrophy, cuff erosion, and stricture. Challenges exist especially in the management of urethral atrophy, with both tandem implants, transcorporal cuffs, and cuff downsizing all postulated as potential remedies. Although complications from AUS implants are not common, knowledge of the management of these issues are crucial to ensure care for patients with these implants. Further studies are needed to further evaluate these techniques.

Malakoplakia of the Prostate as a Mimicker of Prostate Cancer on Prostate Health Index and Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Case Report.

Background: Isolated malakoplakia of the prostate is a rare inflammatory condition that has been clinically mistaken for prostatic malignancies. The development of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) classifications, and Prostate Health Index (PHI) has led to more accurate diagnosis of clinically significant disease and stratification of patients that may be at risk of prostate cancer. Case Presentation: We present a case of a 75-year-old male who was on follow-up with our hospital for elevated prostate specific antigen (PSA). He was admitted for an episode of urosepsis, which was treated with antibiotics and subsequently underwent further workup and was found to have a raised PHI, as well as a high PI-RADS classification and was later found to have malakoplakia based on histology of prostate tissue obtained during targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided fusion prostate biopsy. Conclusion: To our understanding, this is the first case where a prostate lesion has been labeled as a PI-RADS 5 lesion, with elevated PHI that has subsequently been proven histologically to be malakoplakia. An important possible confounder is the interval between the MRI and the episode of urosepsis and it is well known that urosepsis can affect the PSA and MRI result. We present this case to highlight the potential for a false diagnosis of prostate cancer, in spite of laboratory and radiological findings.

Outcomes of Robotic versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: an Updated Meta-Analysis of 4,919 Patients.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the current literature comparing outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search according to Cochrane guidelines up to December 2015 including studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy, and we compared baseline patient and tumor characteristics. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate safety, effectiveness and functional outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using weighted mean difference and inverse variance pooled risk ratios, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 4,919 patients were included from 25 studies (robotic partial nephrectomy 2,681, laparoscopic partial nephrectomy 2,238). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of age, gender, laterality and final malignant pathology. Patients treated with robotic partial nephrectomy had larger tumors (WMD 0.17 cm, p=0.001) and higher mean R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scores (WMD 0.59, p=0.002), and were associated with a decreased likelihood of conversion to laparoscopic/open surgery compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (RR 0.36, p <0.001), any (Clavien 1 or greater) (RR 0.84, p=0.007) and major (Clavien 3 or greater) (RR 0.71, p=0.023) complications, positive margins (RR 0.53, p <0.001) and shorter warm ischemia time by 4.3 minutes (p <0.001). Both approaches had similar operative times (WMD -12.2 minutes, p=0.34), estimated blood loss (WMD -24.6 ml, p=0.15) and postoperative change in estimated glomerular filtration rate. CONCLUSIONS: This updated meta-analysis of retrospective cohort studies demonstrated that robotic partial nephrectomy confers a superior morbidity profile compared to laparoscopic partial nephrectomy in most of the examined perioperative outcomes. Despite being the strongest available evidence (Level 2b) for outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic partial nephrectomy thus far, there have been no completed or ongoing randomized trials to lend Level 1 support for either approach.