Implementation of Robot-assisted Urologic Surgeries using Hugo™ RAS System in a High-volume Robotic "Da vinci Xi" Center: outcomes and initial experience.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the trocar disposition, docking angles, surgical times, functional outcomes and complications experienced during the first 30 surgeries with Hugo™ RAS platform performed by a high volume Da Vinci Xi®`s surgeon. METHODS: Retrospective, observational, descriptive study was performed between May-December 2023. Safety and feasibility of the procedures were evaluated considering console and docking time (min), perioperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), blood loss (mL), collision of the arms during the procedures (Yes/No). For radical prostatectomies (RARP) the urinary continence and sexual function were also evaluated. RESULTS: RARP, simple prostatectomies (RASP), partial nephrectomies (RAPN), and cystectomy (RARC) were performed. Trocar placement, docking, and bed assistant ergonomics were important challenges. Patient positioning, trocar placement, and robotic arm positioning had to be adapted. The median console operative time for RARP and RASP was 78 (60-120) minutes and 79 (58-125) minutes, respectively. The median docking time for both RARP and RASP was 10 (5-20) minutes. Of patients undergoing RARP, 94.5% recovered sexual function and no patient used more than one PAD per day after 90 days of the surgery. The median console operative and docking time for RAPN was 82 (80-130) minutes and 12 minutes (7-19) minutes, respectively. Blood loss in all patients was less than 200 mL and all none procedure presented major complications. CONCLUSION: For a high volume surgeon with motivated and well-trained multidisciplinary team, the implementation of HUGO™ RAS system for urological program is safe and smooth. Adaptations were necessary to achieve equivalent surgical technique and results. Docking position and bed assistant ergonomics are the major challenges.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer outcomes at an uro-oncology referral center

ABSTRACT Introduction To evaluate the possible effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the oncologic results of patients with prostate cancer regarding clinical staging, presence of adverse pathological outcomes, and perioperative complications. Materials and methods This retrospective study included patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. The time between biopsy and surgery, staging tests, final histopathological evaluation after surgery, lymphadenectomy rate, postoperative complications, and prostatic specific antigen (PSA) levels (initial and 30 days after surgery) were analyzed and compared in a group of patients before and during the pandemic period. Results We included 226 patients: 88 in the pre-pandemic period and 138 during the pandemic period. There was no statistically significant difference in mean age, body mass index, ASA, pathological locally advanced disease, the proportion of patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, and ISUP grade in the biopsy between the groups. Positive surgical margins, prostatic extracapsular extension, and PSA levels at 30 days were also similar between the groups. The mean time between medical consultation and surgery was longer in the pandemic period than in the pre-pandemic (124 vs. 107 days, p<0.001), and the mean time between biopsy and medical consultation (69.5 days vs. 114 days, p<0.001) and between biopsy and surgery (198.5 days vs. 228 days, p=0.013) was shorter during the pandemic. The incidence of severe early and late perioperative complications was similar between the periods. Conclusions There was no delay between diagnosis and treatment at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic period. No worsening of the prostate cancer features was observed.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer outcomes at an uro-oncology referral center.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the possible effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the oncologic results of patients with prostate cancer regarding clinical staging, presence of adverse pathological outcomes, and perioperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. The time between biopsy and surgery, staging tests, final histopathological evaluation after surgery, lymphadenectomy rate, postoperative complications, and prostatic specific antigen (PSA) levels (initial and 30 days after surgery) were analyzed and compared in a group of patients before and during the pandemic period. RESULTS: We included 226 patients: 88 in the pre-pandemic period and 138 during the pandemic period. There was no statistically significant difference in mean age, body mass index, ASA, pathological locally advanced disease, the proportion of patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, and ISUP grade in the biopsy between the groups. Positive surgical margins, prostatic extracapsular extension, and PSA levels at 30 days were also similar between the groups. The mean time between medical consultation and surgery was longer in the pandemic period than in the pre-pandemic (124 vs. 107 days, p<0.001), and the mean time between biopsy and medical consultation (69.5 days vs. 114 days, p<0.001) and between biopsy and surgery (198.5 days vs. 228 days, p=0.013) was shorter during the pandemic. The incidence of severe early and late perioperative complications was similar between the periods. CONCLUSIONS: There was no delay between diagnosis and treatment at our institution during the COVID-19 pandemic period. No worsening of the prostate cancer features was observed.

Can remote assistance for robotic surgery improve surgical performance in simulation training? A prospective clinical trial of urology residents using a simulator in south america

ABSTRACT Introduction: We aimed to evaluate the role of remote proctoring during the initial training phases of a robotics curriculum using surgical robot skills simulator exercises. Materials and Methods: Prospective randomized study comprising 36 urology residents and junior staff urologists without previous robotic training. Group 1 (G1) performed exercises without any assistance or support, group 2 (G2) received support from in-person proctor, and group 3 (G3) from a remote proctor through a telementoring system. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted for each exercise and group. Results: The overall score approval rates (OSA) for the different skill exercises were Ring Walk 2 (RW2) 83%, Energy Dissection 2 (ED2) 81%, and Ring Walk 3 (RW3) 14%. RW2 OSA was higher on attempt 3 than on attempt 1 (83.3% vs. 63.9%, p=0.032). ED2 OSA rate was higher in attempt 3 than in attempt 1 (80.6% vs. 52.8%, p=0.002). RW2 OSA was similar among the groups. In ED2, both remote and live assistance were significantly related to upper OSA (G1=47.2%, G2=75.0%, G3=83.3%, p=0.002). RW3 had similar OSA among the groups, which can be explained by the high level of difficulty and low OSA in all the groups. However, in a sensitive quantitative analysis, the mean overall score of the participants in RW3 was higher in both proctored groups (G1=24, G2=57.5, G3=51.5, p=0.042). Conclusion: Robotic performance increased significantly over three attempts for simulation exercises of low, medium, but not high-complexity. Proctoring, either in-person or remotely, has a positive impact on approval performance, particularly in intermediate tasks.

Can remote assistance for robotic surgery improve surgical performance in simulation training? A prospective clinical trial of urology residents using a simulator in south america.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate the role of remote proctoring during the initial training phases of a robotics curriculum using surgical robot skills simulator exercises. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective randomized study comprising 36 urology residents and junior staff urologists without previous robotic training. Group 1 (G1) performed exercises without any assistance or support, group 2 (G2) received support from in-person proctor, and group 3 (G3) from a remote proctor through a telementoring system. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted for each exercise and group. RESULTS: The overall score approval rates (OSA) for the different skill exercises were Ring Walk 2 (RW2) 83%, Energy Dissection 2 (ED2) 81%, and Ring Walk 3 (RW3) 14%. RW2 OSA was higher on attempt 3 than on attempt 1 (83.3% vs. 63.9%, p=0.032). ED2 OSA rate was higher in attempt 3 than in attempt 1 (80.6% vs. 52.8%, p=0.002). RW2 OSA was similar among the groups. In ED2, both remote and live assistance were significantly related to upper OSA (G1=47.2%, G2=75.0%, G3=83.3%, p=0.002). RW3 had similar OSA among the groups, which can be explained by the high level of difficulty and low OSA in all the groups. However, in a sensitive quantitative analysis, the mean overall score of the participants in RW3 was higher in both proctored groups (G1=24, G2=57.5, G3=51.5, p=0.042). CONCLUSION: Robotic performance increased significantly over three attempts for simulation exercises of low, medium, but not high-complexity. Proctoring, either in-person or remotely, has a positive impact on approval performance, particularly in intermediate tasks.

Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of active surveillance in prostate cancer among urologists: a real-life survey from Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) is the preferred treatment for patients with very low-and low-risk prostate cancer (PCa), but it is underperformed worldwide. This study aimed to report knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of AS for PCa among urologists in Brazil. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a questionnaire with 50 questions divided into participant characteristics, knowledge regarding inclusion criteria for AS, follow-up, intervention triggers, acceptance, and practice for an index patient. Data analysis comprises absolute and relative frequencies of the variables. After that, a logistic regression was performed in order to verify possible patterns of answers provided by the respondents in the index patient questionnaire. RESULTS: Questionnaires were sent through the SurveyMonkey® platform to 5,015 urologists using email addresses and through social media. A total of 600 (12%) questionnaires returned and 413 (8.2%) were completed and included in the analysis. Only 53% of urologists adopt AS for low- and very-low-risk PCa. Inclusion criteria were patients with age > 50 years (32.2%), prostate specific antigen (PSA) < 10 ng/mL (87.2%), T1 clinical stage (80.4%), Biopsy Gleason score ≤ 6, positive cores ≤ 2 (44.3%), positive core involvement < 50% (45.3%), and magnetic resonance imaging findings (38.7%). The PSA doubling time was still used by 60.3%. Confirmatory biopsy (55.9%), PSA level (36.6%), and digital rectal examination (34.4%) were considered by most urologists for follow-ups. Patient preference (85.7%), upgrade of Gleason score (73.4%), and increased number of positive cores (66.8%) were associated with conversion to definitive treatment. In an index patient, non-acceptance and active treatment request were the most cited reasons for not performing AS. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the KAP of AS in Brazil, which indicates the need to reinforce AS, its inclusion and follow-up criteria, and the benefits for physicians and the general population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Current evidence for focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer: systematic review of literature published in the last 2 years.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The shift in the diagnostic algorithm for prostate cancer to early imaging with mpMRI has resulted in many patients being diagnosed with small volume, apparently unilateral, clinically significant cancers. In these patients, a minimally invasive, nonmorbid intervention is appealing. The aim of this study was to review data reported within the last 2 years on focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: High-intensity focal ultrasound, focal cryotherapy, photodynamic therapy, irreversible electroporation and focal laser ablation, have been used as treatment modalities for localized prostate cancer treatment. The reported oncologic outcomes vary widely and makes comparisons challenging. All the focal therapies report low rates of complications, and high rates of continence and erectile function preservation. The most common adverse events are hematuria, urinary retention and urinary tract infections. During this period, the initial results of several new technologies including MRI-guided transurethral ultrasound ablation were published. SUMMARY: Focal therapy and partial gland ablation for organ-confined prostate cancer is an option for patients with intermediate-risk disease because of its low complication profile and preservation of QOL. Trials comparing the outcome of different focal therapy technologies have not been carried out, and the existing evidence does not point to one approach being clearly superior to others. Long-term oncologic outcome is lacking. Despite this, for men with unilateral intermediate-risk prostate cancer whose disease is often relatively indolent, focal therapy is an appealing option.

Can multiparametric magnetic resonance of the prostate avoid biopsies in patients with elevated PSA and surgical indication for benign prostatic enlargement?

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the clinical dilemma of men with surgical indication due to benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) and concomitant elevated PSA, we analysed if multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) could safely prescind the prostate biopsy. METHODS: Forty men with surgical indication due to BPE and concomitantly elevated PSA levels were prospectively enrolled and retrospectively analysed. All patients underwent 1.5 Tesla mpMRI prior to TRUS-guided biopsies. In cases where mpMRI was PIRADS 3 with focal lesions, PIRADS 4 or PIRADS 5, additional fragments were obtained with the fusion guided technique. Biopsy histopathological results were used as the standard of reference. Two scenarios were evaluated: scenario 1, considering mpMRI PIRADS 1 and 2 as negative; and scenario 2, considering PIRADS 1, 2 and 3 as negative. Clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) was defined as ISUP ≥ 2. RESULTS: Median age was 68 years, median PSA was 9.41 (6.40-19.54) and median prostatic volume was 116.5 cc (IQR 86.5-155). Scenario 1 mpMRI sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy for any prostate cancer on prostate biopsy was 76.9%, 63%, 50%, 85% and 67.5%. For csPCa, they were 87.5%, 59.4%, 35%, 95% and 65%, respectively, for the same measures. Scenario 2 the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of mpMRI for any prostate cancer on prostate biopsy was 53.8%, 96.3%, 87.5%, 81.3% and 82.5%. For csPCa, they were 75%, 93.8%, 75%, 93.8% and 90%, respectively, for the same measures. CONCLUSION: Prostate mpMRI may prevent unnecessary biopsies in patients with elevated PSA and surgical indications due to BPE, given its high negative predictive value.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of endoscopic enucleation and non-enucleation procedures for benign prostatic enlargement.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate safety and efficacy of different endoscopic enucleation of the prostate (EEP) techniques, by comparing laser (L-EEP) and non-laser (NL-EEP) procedures; and EEP versus other endoscopic non-enucleation (ENE) surgeries for benign prostatic enlargement (BPE). METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed for randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compared different endoscopic treatments for BPE, between 1982 and 2018. Two analyses were performed: (1) EEP versus ENE; and (2) L-EEP versus NL-EEP. Efficacy was assessed using perioperative data (removed tissue volume, operation time (OT), catheterization time, length of hospital stay); and functional outcomes [IPSS, IIEF-5, maximum flow rate (Qmax), postvoid residual volume (PVR), quality of life (QoL)]. Safety was assessed through complications (Hb and sodium decrease, transfusion rate). Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan® 5.3. RESULTS: Out of 35 RCTs (4066 patients), 31 (3909 patients) evaluated EEP versus ENE, and 4 (327 patients) evaluated L-EEP versus NL-EEP. EEP presented greater Qmax. Also, EEP presented less catheterization time, length of hospital stay, Hb decrease, transfusion rate. OT and bladder injury were greater with EEP. There were no significant differences between other items. L-EEP removed more tissue volume, with a smaller drop in serum Hb. There were no significant differences in other perioperative data, functional outcomes, complications. CONCLUSIONS: EEP and ENE are effective and safe for treating BPE. Perioperative data favors EEP. Statistical differences, with questionable clinical significance in functional outcomes and complication rates were encountered. L-EEP provides greater tissue removal and smaller Hb decrease then NL-EEP, with similar functional profiles.

Should aspirin be suspended prior to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose aspirin use has been correlated with an increased risk of bleeding and overall complications in surgical and invasive diagnostic procedures. In this review, our aim was to analyze the current literature on whether robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is feasible and safe in patients taking low-dose aspirin perioperatively. METHODS: A systematic review was performed identifying a total of 767 studies, published between January 2000 and September 2017, with five of these studies meeting the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, totalizing 1481 patients underwent RARP. Patients were divided into two groups: taking aspirin (group A) and those not taking aspirin (group B) perioperatively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups in the overall [group A 10.7% versus group B 15.7%, risk ratio (RR) 0.83; p = 0.45; I 2 = 0%] or major complication rates (group A 1% versus group B 3%, RR 0.98; p = 0.98; I² = 0%), rate of cardiovascular events (group A 1.4% and group B 0.5%, RR 2.06; p = 0.24; I 2 = 9%), blood loss (group A 278 ml versus group B 307 ml, SMD -0.12; p = 0.91; I 2 = 96%), or hospital length of stay [group A 4 days (3-5) and group B 4 days (3-4), SMD -0.09; p = 0.52; I² = 0%]. There was a slightly higher blood-transfusion rate in group A (2.6%) versus group B (1.6%) (RR, 5.05; p = 0.04; I 2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: Continued aspirin use in the perioperative period does not correlate with an increase in surgical morbidity, blood loss, or hospital length of stay. There was a slightly higher blood-transfusion rate in patients taking low-dose aspirin (group A) perioperatively.

Comparison of Gleason upgrading rates in transrectal ultrasound systematic random biopsies versus US-MRI fusion biopsies for prostate cancer

ABSTRACT Purpose: Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging (US-MRI) fusion biopsy (FB) improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare the Gleason upgrading (GU) rates and the concordance of the Gleason scores in the biopsy versus final pathology after surgery in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic random biopsies (SRB) versus US-MRI FB for PCa. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from January 2011 to June 2016 from patients who underwent prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. The study cohort was divided into two groups: US-MRI FB (Group A) and TRUS SRB (Group B). US-MRI FB was performed in patients with a previous MRI with a focal lesion with a Likert score ≥3; otherwise, a TRUS SRB was performed. Results: In total, 73 men underwent US-MRI FB, and 89 underwent TRUS SRB. The GU rate was higher in Group B (31.5% vs. 16.4%; p=0.027). According to the Gleason grade pattern, GU was higher in Group B than in Group A (40.4% vs. 23.3%; p=0.020). Analyses of the Gleason grading patterns showed that Gleason scores 3+4 presented less GU in Group A (24.1% vs. 52.6%; p=0.043). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a higher bias in Group B than in Group A (-0.27 [-1.40 to 0.86] vs. −0.01 [-1.42 to 1.39]). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of GU was the use of TRUS SRB (2.64 [1.11 - 6.28]; p=0.024). Conclusions: US-MRI FB appears to be related to a decrease in GU rate and an increase in concordance between biopsy and final pathology compared to TRUS SRB, suggesting that performing US-MRI FB leads to greater accuracy of diagnosis and better treatment decisions.

The Role of Immunohistochemical Analysis as a Tool for the Diagnosis, Prognostic Evaluation and Treatment of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is a heterogeneous disease that lends itself toward numerous therapeutic options depending on its risk stratification. One of the greatest challenges in PCa urologic practice is to select patients who should be referred for biopsy and, for those patients who are diagnosed with cancer, to differentiate between patients with indolent disease from those with an unfavorable prognosis and, to determine ideal patient management and avoid unnecessary interventions. Accordingly, there is a growing body of literature reporting immunohistochemical studies with the objective of determining a prostate cancer prognosis. Among the most frequent biomarkers studied are Ki-67, p53, PTEN, MYC, and ERG. Based on these findings, we systematically reviewed articles that assessed the role of these main prognostic markers in prostate cancer. Methods: Consistent with PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic literature search throughout the Web of Science and PubMed Medline databases. We considered all types of studies evaluating the role of Ki-67, p53, PTEN, MYC, and ERG immunohistochemical analysis in prostate cancer until July 2017. Results: We identified 361 articles, 44 of which were summarized in this review. Diagnostically, no single immunohistochemical marker was able to define a tumor as benign or malignant. Prognostically, Ki-67, p53, and MYC were related to the tumor grade given by Gleason score and to the tumor stage (higher levels related to higher tumor grade). Furthermore, Ki-67 was also related to higher PSA levels, shorter disease-free intervals and shorter tumor-specific survival; the latter was also related to p53. The loss of PTEN protein expression showed a higher association with biochemical recurrence and with a worse prognosis, beyond that predicted by the Gleason score and tumor stage. ERG staining also showed a strong association with biochemical recurrence. Conclusion: There are several studies relating immunohistochemical markers with clinical-laboratorial outcomes in prostate cancer, the most frequent being Ki-67, p53, ERG, PTEN, and MYC. However, none of these markers have been validated by literary consensus to be routinely applied in medical practice.

Comparison of Gleason upgrading rates in transrectal ultrasound systematic random biopsies versus US-MRI fusion biopsies for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging (US-MRI) fusion biopsy (FB) improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). We aimed to compare the Gleason upgrading (GU) rates and the concordance of the Gleason scores in the biopsy versus final pathology after surgery in patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) systematic random biopsies (SRB) versus US-MRI FB for PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data that were collected prospectively from January 2011 to June 2016 from patients who underwent prostate biopsy and subsequent radical prostatectomy. The study cohort was divided into two groups: US-MRI FB (Group A) and TRUS SRB (Group B). US-MRI FB was performed in patients with a previous MRI with a focal lesion with a Likert score ≥3; otherwise, a TRUS SRB was performed. RESULTS: In total, 73 men underwent US-MRI FB, and 89 underwent TRUS SRB. The GU rate was higher in Group B (31.5% vs. 16.4%; p=0.027). According to the Gleason grade pattern, GU was higher in Group B than in Group A (40.4% vs. 23.3%; p=0.020). Analyses of the Gleason grading patterns showed that Gleason scores 3+4 presented less GU in Group A (24.1% vs. 52.6%; p=0.043). The Bland-Altman plot analysis showed a higher bias in Group B than in Group A (-0.27 [-1.40 to 0.86] vs. -0.01 [-1.42 to 1.39]). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor of GU was the use of TRUS SRB (2.64 [1.11 - 6.28]; p=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: US-MRI FB appears to be related to a decrease in GU rate and an increase in concordance between biopsy and final pathology compared to TRUS SRB, suggesting that performing US-MRI FB leads to greater accuracy of diagnosis and better treatment decisions.