Outcomes after precision prostatectomy: safety, efficacy and transference of skills.

PURPOSE: Precision Prostatectomy (PP) is a viable treatment option for men with unilateral dominant cancer who are interested in preserving functional outcomes. To date, the data published about the outcomes of this technique has come from a single center only (Henry Ford - HF). We present the surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes of the first series of patients to undergo PP outside of HF, to demonstrate the safety and reproducibility of the technique. METHODS: Between 2022 and 2023, PP was offered to select patients who were interested in preserving their functional status. Men who underwent PP were followed at 3 monthly intervals; information regarding their functional status was simultaneously obtained. Men who had biochemical recurrence were advised to undergo remnant biopsy. If residual cancer was detected, then remnant removal was performed. RESULTS: The median age and median PSA of the study group was 63 years and 6.89 ng/ml respectively. The median operative and console times were 196.5 and 154 minutes. No intra-operative complications were noted. Three patients had a total of three post-operative complications. Three patients had biochemical recurrence; cancer was not detected in any of these patients on postoperative biopsies of the prostatic remnant. At 12 months, 91% of patients reported using 0 pads/day and 90.9% of pre-operatively potent patients were potent at 12 months. CONCLUSION: PP is a safe and reproducible technique that can ensure cancer control and preservation of functional status in select patients. Further studies with large sample sizes and longer follow-up are required to ascertain the long-term outcomes of this surgical technique.

Re-establishing the Role of Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy After the 2020 EAU Muscle-invasive and Metastatic Bladder Cancer Guideline Panel Recommendations.

The EAU guidelines panel on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer (MIBC) recently recommended open radical cystectomy (ORC) as the best surgical approach for MIBC patients. We critically re-examine the indications for considering ORC as the first choice over robot-assisted radical cystectomy. To the best of our knowledge, this is not supported by trials or meta-analyses.

Anatomical robotic prostatectomy: technical factors to achieve superb continence and erectile function.

Debate continues as to the superiority of robotic versus open radical prostatectomy for the surgical treatment of localized prostate cancer. Despite this controversy, retrospective data from high volume centres has demonstrated RARP is associated with improved pentafecta outcomes with lower transfusion rates, less incontinence, lower positive surgical margins and improved potency. Advocates of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) believe an enhanced visual field, the precision afforded by robotic technology as well as lack of bleeding, sharp dissection and delicate tissue handling lead to improved outcomes. Prostate Cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in men, and as the number of post-surgical patients increases, the complications of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction not only have a significant negative impact on patients' quality of life, but have become an expanding part of clinical practice. This article outlines what are believed to be the most important strategies based on anatomical knowledge and technical expertise, that allow robotic prostatectomists to achieve superb outcomes in urinary and erectile function.

Defining Prostate Cancer at Favorable Intermediate Risk: The Potential Utility of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Genomic Tests.

PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic biomarkers might help further define patients with favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer which could safely be considered suitable for active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From our institutional database we identified 509 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and a postoperative Decipher® prostate cancer test. According to the NCCN® (National Comprehensive Cancer Network®) risk stratification 125 men had favorable intermediate and 171 had unfavorable intermediate risk disease. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were done to test the utility of different variables in predicting adverse pathology, defined as Gleason Grade Group greater than 2, pT3b or pN1. RESULTS: On univariable analysis favorable intermediate risk, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the prostate cancer test significantly predicted adverse pathology. On multivariable analysis favorable intermediate risk and the prostate cancer test maintained independent predictive value while multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging did not meet statistical significance (p = 0.059). The 19 patients at favorable intermediate risk with high genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly higher than patients at unfavorable intermediate risk (42.1% vs 39.8%, p = 0.56). Those at low genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at very low or low risk (7.5% vs 10.2%, p = 0.84). The 31 patients at favorable intermediate risk but at high multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at unfavorable intermediate risk (25.8% vs 39.8%, p = 0.14). Those at low multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and genomic risk had an adverse pathology rate slightly lower than patients at very low or low risk (8.5% vs 10.2%, p = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and the Decipher test allowed us to better define the risk of adverse pathology in patients at favorable intermediate risk who were diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Supra-pubic versus urethral catheter after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: systematic review of current evidence.

PURPOSE: To provide latest evidence on the use of suprapubic catheter (SPC) versus urethral catheter (UC) after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic revision of literature was performed up to September 2017 using different search engines (Pubmed, Ovid, Scopus) to identified studies comparing the use of SPC versus standard UC after RARP. Identification and selection of the studies were conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis criteria. For continuous outcomes, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as a summary measure, whereas the odds ratio (OR) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary variables. RR was preferred in cases of a high number of events to avoid overestimation. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effect model to account for clinical heterogeneity. All statistical analyses were performed using Review manager 5 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). RESULTS: Eight studies were identified and included in this systematic review, namely 3 RCTs, 4 non-randomized prospective studies, and one retrospective study. A total of 966 RARP cases were collected for the cumulative analysis. Among them, 492 patients received standard UC and 474 SPC placement after RARP. UC patients had higher baseline PSA (WMD 0.44 ng/ml; p = 0.02). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was found to be significantly lower in patients with SPC at postoperative day 7 (WMD 0.53; 95% CI 0.13-0.93; p = 0.009). Regarding penile pain, a significant difference in favor of the SPC group was found at postoperative day 7 assessment (WMD 1.2; 95% CI 0.82-1.6; p < 0.001). More patients in the SPC group reported "not at all" or "minimal pain" at this time point (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06, 0.44; p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of continence recovery rate at 6-12 weeks between the groups (UC 78.7%, 88.2%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84, 1.01; p = 0.09). Similarly, no differences were found in terms of catheter-related issues (p = 0.17). However, UC patients had lower likelihood of overall complications (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that the use of SPC can be a viable option for postoperative urine drainage after RARP, as it can translate into decreased postoperative pain without carrying a significant higher risk of catheter-related complications. Further investigation seems to be warranted, ideally within the framework of a multicentre randomized study with standardized analysis of outcomes.

[Athermal robotic technique of radical prostatectomy: an assistant's perspective]. / Prostatectomía robótica atérmica: perspectiva del ayudante quirúrgico.

Robotic radical prostatectomy is fast getting popular as an alternative to the open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Planning for port placement and the assistant's role are the two crucial yardsticks for the success of this procedure. Ideal port placement for radical robotic prostatectomy is not only crucial for the surgeon at the console but also for the patient side assistant. A better assistance could enhance the functional outcome of the procedure and at the same time could increase the comfort level of the surgeon at the console. This article describes the role of an assistant in robotic radical prostatectomy.