Preliminary results of the implementation of robotic radical prostatectomy in a major ambulatory surgery regimen.

OBJECTIVE: To report our initial experience with robotic radical prostatectomy as an outpatient procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent RRP as MAS (Major Ambulatory Surgery) at our center between March 2021 and May 2022. We collected baseline patient characteristics, intraoperative outcomes and postoperative data (need for unplanned medical care and complications at one month after surgery). Oncologic characteristics at disease diagnosis (PSA, staging, ISUP, MRI) and postoperative pathologic outcomes were collected. RESULTS: We identified a total of 35 patients with an average age of 60,8 ± 6,88 years and a BMI of 27 ± 2,9 Kg/m2. All patients had a low anesthetic risk and 25.71% had undergone previous abdominal surgery. The surgical time was 151,66 ± 42,15 min and the average blood loss was 301,2 ± 184,38 mL. Two patients (5.7%) were admitted for one night and 7 patients (20%) consulted the emergency department in the following month, of which 3 (8.57%) were readmitted. We recorded one intraoperative complication, seven mild postoperative complications (Clavien I-II) and one severe complication (Clavien IIIb). The severe complication occurred on the eighth postoperative day and was not related to the procedure being ambulatory. CONCLUSION: The absence of serious complications in the immediate postoperative period supports RRP in MAS as a safe technique for selected patients.

Infrapubic surgical approach for penile prosthesis surgery: Indications and technique. / Cirugía de prótesis peneana: indicaciones y técnica infrapúbica.

CONTEXT: Penile prosthesis surgery is currently the most effective treatment for erectile dysfunction when medical treatment is ineffective or contraindicated. Among the surgical approaches described in the literature, the scrotal, infrapubic and subcoronal are the most common in the daily clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives were to describe the infrapubic surgical technique evaluating its indications and complications, as well as comparing its advantages and disadvantages with the penoscrotal approach. ACQUISITION AND SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE: A literature review from 1983 until current date was carried out in Medline (PubMed and Cochrane Library databases) following PRISMA standards. Sixteen studies were included: 4 prospective, 4 retrospective, one systematic review, one randomized trial, one original article, 5 expert opinion/surgical technique descriptive paper. DISCUSSION: According to the literature reviewed, although the penoscrotal approach is the most applied, the infrapubic approach showed a shorter operative time and a tendency for an earlier recovery of sexual activity after surgery. Complications are rare, having similar rates to the penoscrotal approach; no cases of glans hypoesthesia have been reported and peri-prosthetic infection rates were less than 3%. Satisfaction rates of infrapubic penile prosthesis were higher than 80%. CONCLUSIONS: Penile prosthesis implantation requires of a profound knowledge of the different surgical approaches in order to best adapt each technique based on each individualized case. The infrapubic approach, even if it is not the most used, is as feasible and reliable as the penoscrotal approach. The infrapubic approach is effective and safe, with high level of both, patients and partners' satisfaction.