Same-Day Discharge Protocol for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Experience of a High-Volume Referral Center.

Objective: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic continues, there is increased value in performing same-day discharge (SDD) protocols to minimize viral exposure and maintain the appropriate surgical treatment for oncologic patients. In this scenario, we performed a prospective analysis of outcomes of our patients undergoing SDD protocol after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Materials and Methods: The SDD criteria included patients with no intraoperative complications, stable postoperative hemoglobin levels (compared with preoperative values), stable vital signs, normal urine output, ambulation with assistance and independently without dizziness, tolerance of clear liquids without nausea or vomiting, pain control with oral medication, and patient/family confidence with SDD. Patients older than 70 years, concomitant general surgery operations, multiple comorbidities, and complex procedures such as salvage surgery were excluded from our protocol. Results: Of the 101 patients who met the criteria for SDD, 73 (72%) had an effective SDD. All SDF (same day discharge failure) patients were discharged one day after surgery. Intraoperative characteristics were not statistically different with a median operative time of 92 (81-107) vs 103 (91-111) minutes for SDD and SDF, respectively. Of the 28 SDF patients, the most common reasons for staying were anesthesia-related factors of nausea (35%), drowsiness (7%), patient/caregiver preference (25%), pain (14%), labile blood pressure (7%), arrhythmia (7%), and dizziness (7%). There was no significant difference in readmission rates, complication rates, or postoperative pain scores between SDD and SDF patients. Conclusions: In our experience, SDD for patients undergoing RARP can be safely and feasibly incorporated into a clinical care pathway without increasing readmission rates. We were effective in 72% of cases because of coordinated care between anesthetics, nursing staff, and appropriate patient selection. We also believe that incorporating pre- and postoperative patient education and assurance is crucial to minimize their exposure to COVID-19 during the surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

Robtic-assisted radical cystectomy: Literature review.

Radical cystectomy (RC) with pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) is the standard treatment for localized muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) with recurrence or high risk of progression. Also, the robotic approach to this type of surgery is well established in the literature. Our objective is to summarize in this manuscript the most relevant articles related to the robotic-assisted radical cystectomy for prostate cancer. We performed a literature review of articles describing the robotic approach to RC in patients with bladder cancer. Also, we described the procedure since the patient selection until the bladder removal. The reconstructive techniques were not included in this review. Twenty-five articles were used to divide our manuscript into key points such as preoperative patient selection and protocols, surgical technique, pathology report, oncological outcomes, complication rates, and quality of life after the procedure. Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy is feasible and safe with satisfactory oncological outcomes. The robotic approach is related to lower blood loss and fewer transfusion rates. However, when compared to open surgery, the use of this technology increases the operative time.

Use of transversus abdominis plane block to decrease pain scores and narcotic use following robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

The aim of this study was to assess whether transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks can be utilized to decrease patient pain scores and narcotic use during the first 24 h following robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). 100 patients received a TAP block with a mixture of 1.3% liposomal bupivacaine, 0.5% Marcaine and 0.9% NaCl prior to RALP. This was in addition to an already established pain management regiment, which included preoperative PO acetaminophen (650 mg), celecoxib (200 mg), and tolterodine ER (4 mg). These patients were prospectively followed and then retrospectively compared to a 1:1 propensity matched group of 100 patients that did not receive a TAP but did receive the preoperative PO medications. Pain scores were assessed on a scale from 1-10 in the PACU, as well as the surgical floor at 8, 16, and 24-h post-surgery. Intra-/post-operative narcotic use and time to ambulation following arrival to the surgical floor were also analyzed. Patient receiving TAP blocks had immediate post-op pain scores of 2.23 vs 4.26 for those not receiving TAP blocks (p = 0.000). The pain scores at 8, 16, and 24 h for TAP patients were 2.68, 2.62, and 2.62 as compared to 2.89, 2.87, and 3.36 for non-TAP patients. The difference was statistically significant for immediate and 24-h pain scores (p = 0.000, 0.001, respectively). On average, TAP block patients ambulated faster than non-TAP patients, 2.68 vs 4.91 h (p = 0.000). Intra-operative narcotic use was decreased in the TAP group for each of the opioids that were used: fentanyl 177.5 vs 205mcg (p = 0.001), morphine 5.5 vs 10 mg (p = 0.000), and hydromorphone 0.75 vs 1.75 mg (p = 0.001). Narcotic usage in the PACU was limited to hydromorphone and TAP patients used 0.7 mg compared to 1.36 mg (p = 0.003) for non-TAP patients. Oral oxycodone/acetaminophen (5 mg/325 mg) was used for pain control on the surgical floor and on average TAP patients received less, 2.4 vs 5 tabs (p = 0.000). Average time to perform the TAP block was 3.5 min and total OR time for TAP vs non-TAP patients was 107.41 vs 106.58 min (p = 0.386). TAP blocks as part of a perioperative pain management protocol can be utilized during RALPs to decrease patient pain scores at two different time intervals, immediately post-operative and 24 h after surgery. Patients also ambulate sooner following surgery and require a decreased amount of narcotics during the intra-operative and post-operative periods. TAP blocks are quick, effective, and do not add a significant amount of OR time to RALPs.

Changing clinical trends in 10 000 robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy patients and impact of the 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force's statement against PSA screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical trend changes in our robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) practice and to investigate the effect of 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) statement against PSA screening on these trends. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 10 000 RALPs performed by a single surgeon between 2002 and 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Time trends in successive 1000 cases for clinical, surgical and pathological characteristics were analysed with linear and logistic regression. Time-trend changes before and after the USPSTF's statement were compared using a logistic regression model and likelihood-ratio test. RESULTS: Unfavourable cancer characteristics rate, including D'Amico high risk, pathological non-organ-confined disease and Gleason score ≥4+4 increased from 11.5% to 23.3%, 14% to 42.5%, and 7.7% to 20.9%, respectively, over time (all P < 0.001). Significant time-trend changes were detected after the USPSTF's statement with an increase in the positive trend of Gleason ≥4+4 and increase in the negative trends of Gleason ≤3+4 tumours. There was a significant negative trend in the rate of full nerve-sparing (NS) with a decrease from 59.3% to 35.7%, and a significant positive trend in partial NS with an increase from 15.8% to 62.5% over time (both P < 0.001). The time-trend slope in 'high-grade' partial NS significantly decreased and 'low-grade' partial NS significantly increased after the USPSTF's statement. The overall positive surgical margin rate increased from 14.6% to 20.3% in the first vs last 1000 cases (P < 0.001), with a significant positive slope after the USPSTF's statement. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of high-risk patients increased in our series over time with a significant impact of the USPSTF's statement on pathological time trends. This stage migration resulted in decreased utilisation of high-quality NS and increased performance of poor-quality NS.

Safety of Live Robotic Surgery: Results from a Single Institution.

BACKGROUND: Live surgery events (LSEs) have become one of the most attended activities at surgical meetings and provide a unique opportunity for the audience to observe the decision-making process used by skilled and experienced surgeons in real time. However, there is an ongoing discussion on whether patients treated during LSE are at higher risk of complications. OBJECTIVE: To examine LSE outcomes for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and establish patient safety and efficacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From January 2008 to April 2016, >9000 patients underwent RARP at our institution, performed by a single surgeon. From this group, 36 patients underwent live RARP surgery (LS group) transmitted via video link from our institution to an external congress. A control group was obtained from our database to compare outcomes between the LS group and patients undergoing RARP under regular circumstances. The data were prospectively collected in a customized database and retrospectively analyzed. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent RARP performed by a single surgeon at our institution. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Postoperative outcomes were compared between the LS (n=36) and the control (n=108) groups using Student's t test and analysis of variance for continuous variables, and a two-tailed Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics (age, body mass index, comorbidities, preoperative Gleason score, Sexual Health Inventory for Men score and American Urological Association symptom score) between the groups. The median console time was shorter for the LS group (73min, interquartile range [IQR] 70-79) than for the control group (78min, IQR 75-87; p=0.0371). No major complications were reported in either group, and only four minor complications were observed in the control group (p=0.2415). After median follow-up of 31 mo (IQR 18-50), only one patient (2.77%) in the LS group experienced biochemical recurrence, compared to four (3.71%) in the control group (p=0.7927). There was no significant difference in continence rates between the LS and control groups (97.22% vs 93.52%; p=0.7768). No differences in potency rate were evident by the end of the follow-up period (LS 69.44%, control group 70.37%; p=0.8432). The retrospective nature, the lack of randomization, and the single-institution experience are limitations of the study. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of live transmitted RARPs, perioperative results (oncological and functional outcomes and complications) were similar to those found in daily practice. After careful patient selection, LSEs are safe with minimal patient morbidity in the hands of an experienced surgeon working with a familiar surgical team. Further evaluation of the results from other surgeons at other centers is necessary. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the safety of surgeries broadcast live from our institution. We found that outcomes were similar to those for patients undergoing surgery under regular circumstances in terms of the rate of complications and oncological and functional outcomes. We conclude that live transmitted surgery is safe in well-selected patients in the hands of an experienced surgeon.

Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional outcomes from two high-volume institutions.

INTRODUCTION: While no consensus on the optimal salvage treatment exists, only 3% of these patients will get salvage radical prostatectomies due to the assumed technical challenges of this procedure. OBJECTIVES: Our goal is to analyze the perioperative, oncologic and functional outcomes of patients undergoing salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) after primary treatment failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed from a combined database of more than 14,800 patients who had undergone RARP. We identified 96 patients who underwent sRARP after RT or ablative techniques. Primary cancer characteristics, surgical data, pathology results, perioperative complications, oncologic and functional outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients (70.8%) received some source of RT as a primary treatment. The remaining 28 patients: 18 (18.75%) received cryotherapy, seven (7.92%) HIFU, one electroporation, one microwave and one Tookad. complication was seen in 25 (26%) patients (21 minor and 4 major complications). Anastomotic leak was the most common complication, found in 14 (14.6%) of the cases. No rectal injuries occurred. Fourteen (15%) patients had a biochemical failure after a median follow-up of 14 (IQR 5-24) months. Fifty-five (57.3%) of them self-reported to be pad-free at 12 months. Seventeen (55%) of 31 pre-operative potent patients (SHIM score > 21), were potent with or without the use of PDE5i at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: sRARP is a feasible alternative for PCa recurrence. Technically the procedure is challenging and should be performed by experienced PCa surgeons. Major complications are uncommon. Continence and potency recovery is possible, but at lower rates than for non-salvage patients.

Can dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane accelerate the return to potency after a nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy? Propensity score-matched analysis.

The objective of this study is to determine if the use of dehydrated human amnion/chorion membrane (dHACM) allograft wrapped around the NVB during a robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) accelerates the return to potency. 940 patients with preoperative SHIM >20 underwent RARP with some degree of bilateral NS. Of these, 235 patients underwent RARP, with bilateral placement of dHACM graft around the NVBs. They were matched in a 1:3 proportion with a similar group of patients (n = 705) who did not receive the allograft (control group or group 2). Minimum follow-up was 12 months. Postoperative outcomes were analyzed between propensity-matched dHACM graft (group 1) and non-graft groups (group 2). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were compared across techniques using the log-rank test. There were no significant demographic differences between the two groups. Potency was defined as the ability to achieve and maintain satisfactory erections firm enough for sexual intercourse, with or without the use of PDE-5 inhibitors. The mean time to potency was significantly lower in group 1 (2.37 months) versus group 2 (3.94 months) (p < 0.0001). The potency recovery rates were superior for group 1 at all early time points measured except at 12 months. The time to potency was significantly shorter in the dHACM group with full NS, 2.19 ± 1.84 versus 2.78 ± 2.70 mo. in the non-dHACM with full NS (p = 0.029). In the dHACM group with partial NS, the mean time to potency was 3.05 ± 2.32 versus 3.92 ± 3.42 mo. in the non-dHACM with partial NS (p = 0.021). Patients who received the dHACM wrap around the NVB after RARP accelerates the return to potency when compared to a similar control group without the use of the allograft. We also demonstrated that this faster return to potency occurs regardless of the degree of the NS preservation. Younger patients (<55 years of age) had the highest overall advantage if they received the graft. Our results indicate that dHACM placement at the site of the prostatic NVB does not increase the risk of BCR after RARP, neither in the presence of PSM, extra-prostatic disease (≥pT3) nor high Gleason score (Gleason ≥8).

Use of Scaffolding Tissue Biografts To Bolster Vesicourethral Anastomosis During Salvage Robot-assisted Prostatectomy Reduces Leak Rates and Catheter Times.

BACKGROUND: One of the key factors contributing to morbidity associated with salvage radical prostatectomy is a significant vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) disruption or postoperative tissue dehiscence in the region of the distal bladder neck that causes a large prolonged urinary leak, perineal pain, and delayed catheter removal. OBJECTIVE: To describe our surgical technique using a urinary bladder extracellular matrix (UB-ECM) scaffold incorporated into the base of the VUA and the distal bladder neck during salvage robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) and to assess outcomes and safety. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From March to July 2015, 15 patients underwent sRARP performed after primary therapy failure by a single surgeon. Two other groups were identified via analysis of propensity score matching. Group 2 (n=45) underwent sRARP with standard suturing without use of the graft. Group 3 (control group; n=45) underwent primary RARP with no graft placement. These two groups were compared group 1 (n=15), in which patients underwent sRARP and received the scaffold in a 1:3:3 match. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: sRARP with use of a UB-ECM scaffold in the posterior aspect of the VUA and distal bladder neck. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Clinical data were prospectively collected in a customized database and retrospectively analyzed. Analysis of variance and Student's t-test were used to test the equality of means for continuous variables, while the χ2 test was used to test categorical variables. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There were no anastomotic leaks in the control group, with an average catheter time of 6.3 d (5-7 d). However, a clinically significant VUA/bladder neck disruption was observed in 16 patients (35.5%) in group 2, with a median catheterization time of 17.4 d (9-47 d), while in group 1 only one patient (6.66%) had a significant anastomotic leak on cystography (p=0.045), with median catheterization time of 11.2 d (10-52 d) for this group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of a UB-ECM scaffold into the base of the VUA and distal bladder neck should be considered as an option to decrease morbidity associated with sRARP since it decreased the rate of VUA disruption, enhanced healing, and reduced catheterization time. This technique could be a valuable tool for all surgeons performing sRARP. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated the use of a scaffolding tissue graft when connecting the urethra to the bladder during salvage robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. This technique was found to be effective and safe.

Robotic hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for endometrial cancer: technical aspects and details of success-the Ohio State University method.

Limited data exist regarding description and technical aspects of operating room (OR) set-up, port placement, and instrument selection for robotic gynecologic oncology procedures. The objective of this manuscript and video is to show the established protocol steps at our institution for setting up a robotic hysterectomy and comprehensive lymphadenectomy (dVH-LND) for endometrial cancer. OR preparation of the robotic system prior to patient entry and set-up is demonstrated. The patient is placed in low-lithotomy on an OR table that includes a beanbag and a gel pad that is taped securely for additional stabilization. The arms/shoulders are padded to decrease injury risk and the chest is padded with foam to protect the patient from robotic arm movements. The patient is prepped widely from mid-nipple line to beyond the mid-axillary line and draped. Vaginal instrumentation includes an end-to-end anstomosis (EEA) sizer and pneumo-occluder. Port preferences, placement, and instrument selections are also demonstrated. Using a four-arm robotic system, the camera port is placed midline, approximately 20-27 cm above the pubic symphysis. Robotic ports (RP) for arms #2 and #3 are placed 8-12 cm left lateral to and 15-30° down from the camera port at approximately the level of the umbilicus. A 12 mm laparoscopic assistant port and RP#1 are placed 8-12 cm right lateral to the umbilicus and in the same position as RP#3 and #2, respectively. An additional 5 mm port is placed beneath the costal margin. This method requires only a single docking and one instrument exchange. The bedside assistant stands on the right and is essential for exposure, manipulating the uterus, passage of suture, and troubleshooting potential problems. In addition, port closure technique and methods to remove a large uterus are discussed. We have successfully completed over 70 dVH-LND for endometrial cancer using this protocol. Establishing a systematic routine for OR set-up and port placement in robotic surgery for gynecologic oncology is important for patient safety and allows for efficient use of OR time.