Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy in a patient with a pre-existing three piece inflatable penile prosthesis.

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the primary and standard treatment for localized prostate cancer. As in many surgical procedures, RP can now be accomplished through minimally invasive methods. RP in a patient with a pre-existing 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is an exceptional condition and involves coping with many difficulties. In this case report, we aimed to present a patient with pre-existing 3-piece IPP for whom we successfully performed robotic perineal RP (r-PRP).

Effect of pelvimetric diameters on success of surgery in patients submitted to robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy

ABSTRACT Objective: Minimally invasive techniques are used increasingly by virtue of advancements in technology. Surgery for prostate cancer, which has high morbidity, is performed with an increasing momentum based on the successful oncological and functional outcomes as well as cosmetic aspects. Materials and methods: Sixty two patients underwent robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (R-PRP) surgery at our clinic between November 2016 and August 2017. Six pelvimetric dimensions were defined and measured by performing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to operation in all patients. In light of these data, we aimed to investigate the effect of pelvimetric measurements on surgery duration and surgical margin positivity. Results: By using this technique in pelvic area, we observed that measurements only representing surgical site and excluding other pelvic organs had a significant effect on surgery duration, and pelvic dimensions had no significant effect on surgical margin positivity. Conclusion: In R-PRP technique, peroperative findings and oncological outcomes can vary depending on several variable factors, but although usually not taken into account, pelvimetric measurements can also affect these outcomes. However, there is a need for randomised controlled trials to be conducted with more patients.

Effect of pelvimetric diameters on success of surgery in patients submitted to robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive techniques are used increasingly by virtue of advancements in technology. Surgery for prostate cancer, which has high morbidity, is performed with an increasing momentum based on the successful oncological and functional outcomes as well as cosmetic aspects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 62 patients underwent robot-assisted perineal radical prostatectomy (R-PRP) surgery at our clinic between November 2016 and August 2017. Six pelvimetric dimensions were defined and measured by performing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to operation in all patients. In light of these data, we aimed to investigate the effect of pelvimetric measurements on surgery duration and surgical margin positivity. RESULTS: By using this technique in pelvic area, we observed that measurements only representing surgical site and excluding other pelvic organs had a significant effect on surgery duration, and pelvic dimensions had no significant effect on surgical margin positivity. CONCLUSION: In R-PRP technique, peroperative findings and oncological outcomes can vary depending on several variable factors, but although usually not taken into account, pelvimetric measurements can also affect these outcomes. However, there is a need for randomised controlled trials to be conducted with more patients.

Robotic-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A matched-pair analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of robotic-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (r-PRP) versus robotic-assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between November 2016 and September 2017 in our center, 40 patients underwent r-PRP, and 40 patients underwent RARP. All patients also underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to exclude the cases with locally advanced disease. Patients with localized prostate cancer (C-T2N0M0) were included in the study. The exclusion criteria were contraindications for undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy; the Gleason score ≥4+3; extracapsular extension proven on biopsy or suspected on mpMRI; clinical stage ≥T2c; required pelvic lymph dissection according to Partin's normogram; previous radiation therapy; hormonal therapy; any previous prostatic, urethral, or bladder neck surgery; and preoperative urinary incontinence or erectile dysfunction. Patients were placed in the exaggerated lithotomy position with 15° Trendelenburg for r-PRP and 40° Trendelenburg for RARP. RESULTS: The mean age for the r-PRP and RARP groups were 61.2 (46-73) and 62.2 (50-75) years, respectively. The mean body mass index was significantly higher in the r-PRP group (p=0.02). The mean procedure duration time was 169.4 (100-255) minutes for the r-PRP group and 173.1 (130-210) minutes for the RARP group. The mean console time and anastomosis time were significantly lower for the r-PRP group. The mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower for the r-PRP group (p=0.002). Immediate continence rates in the r-PRP and RARP groups following the urethral catheter removal were 42% and 35% (p=0.30), respectively. Continence rates increased to 94.2% in the r-PRP and 72% in RARP (p=0.001) group at the 6th month, and to 95% in the r-PRP and 85.2% in RARP (p=0.02) group at the 9th month follow-up period. According to the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5), the erectile function rates at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up in the r-PRP group were 44%, 66%, and 75%, respectively. The rates in the RARP group at the 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up were 25%, 42%, and 66% (p=0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: In our experience, r-PRP has acceptable morbidity, excellent surgical and pathological outcomes, and satisfactory oncologic and functional results compared to RARP.

Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy with high prostate volume.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive techniques are ever improving and are preferred more. Many techniques were developed in radical prostatectomy operations. Robotic radical prostatectomy with the perineal approach is a new technique. CASE PRESENTATION: A 66-year-old male patient presented because of lower urinary tract symptoms, a PSA value of 5.5 ng/ml was detected, prostate biopsy was performed under transrectal ultrasound guide, a Gleason 3+3 adenocarcinoma on 3/12 foci was reported at pathology. Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy (r-PRP) operation was performed in the patient who had a prostate volume of 130 cc with middle lobe and a body mass index of 32 without additional disease. The duration of operation was 140 minutes in total and the duration at the console was 95 minutes, the amount of bleeding was 85 cc and no intraoperative complication was detected. CONCLUSION: r-PRP is a technique that can be applied safely without prolonging the operation period and without additional morbidity to the patient, preserving the oncologic and functional outcomes in patients with surgical history and large prostate volume.

Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and robotic pelvic lymph node dissection via a perineal approach: The Tugcu Bakirkoy Technique.

OBJECTIVE: To describe The Tugcu Bakirkoy robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection technique, and present the results of seven patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed seven robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection operation using Da Vinci Xi HD Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, California, USA) on single Gel-port platform. The operation is completed in 4 stages: stage 1 open perineal dissection and gel port placement, stage 2 robotic perineal radical prostatectomy, stage 3 robotic pelvic lymph node dissection, stage 4 vesico-urethral anastomosis. In addition to describing the operation technique step by step, we aimed to present the perioperative and postoperative findings of the seven patients who underwent The Tugcu Bakirkoy Technique. RESULTS: All operations were successfully completed without any complications in fully the robotic procedure by a single surgeon. Demographic data of the patients were as follows: Mean age (62.1±8 years), mean body mass index (28.2±0.7 kg/m2), mean prostate specific antigen value (10.7±3 ng/mL), and mean prostate volume (64.2±15.3 cc). Mean operative time (184.1±20.2 mins), blood loss (64.2±15.3 cc), hospitalization time (2.1±0.6 days), and time to withdrawal of the urethral catheter (7.8±0.8 days) were also estimated. According to the pathology results, lymph node metastasis was detected in 3 patients while the surgical margin was positive in one. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated for the first time that a new The Tugcu Bakirkoy robotic perineal radical prostatectomy technique which was previously tested in a cadaveric model, can be safely applied for the first time in vivo, and presented our results. On the basis of this, for problems that can not be overcome by traditional methods, this method is a good alternative as a way out. In this regard, it is necessary to carry out advanced studies so that this method can be applied to daily practice.

Robot-Assisted Perineal Radical Prostatectomy in a Post-Kidney Transplant Recipient.

Background: After almost two decades, transabdominal robotic radical prostatectomy techniques have been fully developed and are widely practiced by many robotic urologists. Recently, a transperineal robotic radical prostatectomy, a technique not yet popular to many, was introduced as an alternative approach in patients with previous abdominal surgery. Here, we present our unique experience with robotic perineal radical prostatectomy (r-PRP) on a kidney transplant recipient. Case Presentation: A 71-year-old man who had a kidney transplant 4 months previously was diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) and underwent r-PRP using the da Vinci Xi robotic system. The operative time was 110 minutes and blood loss was minimal. After the perineal drain was removed on postoperative day 3, the patient was discharged. The urethral catheter was subsequently removed on postoperative day 8. Pathologic analysis revealed localized PCa with negative surgical margins. Conclusion: The r-PRP offers all the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. Moreover, in a kidney transplant recipient, it provides additional benefits, such as avoidance of allograft vascular and ureteral injuries, while maintaining an equivalent oncologic efficacy and surgical safety compared with its transabdominal counterpart.

Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly evolving and preferred to reduce surgical induced morbidity and mortality and minimize the challenges of surgical techniques. Especially radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) includes some challenges like working in a deep and narrow space and challenging ergonomics for the surgeons. Because of these issues open RPP is still performed in experienced centers. In order to reduce these difficulties, robot- assisted radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP) is developed. In this study, we report our first clinical results for r-RPP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between November 2016 and February 2017, 15 patients underwent r-RPP in our center. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging was performed for all patients to exclude locally advanced disease. The patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and locally advanced prostate cancer were not chosen for r-RPP method. The patient was positioned in the exaggerated lithotomy with 15 degrees of Trendelenburg position. After incision and dissection of subcutaneous tissue, dissection was advanced to the margin of posterior recto-urethral muscle fibers. Then a GelPOINT® device was placed and robotic system was docked. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 60.2±7.8 years. The mean body mass index of the patients was 28.8±1.9 kg/m2. Four patients had previous major abdominal surgeries. Preoperative mean prostate specific antigen value was 7.3±2.4 ng/mL. The mean prostate volume was 40.8±12.4 cc. Mean perineal dissection time was 60±10.1 minutes. Mean console time and total operation time was 95±11.3 and 167±37.4 minutes, respectively. The mean time of postoperative catheterization was 8.3±1.7 days. Early continence rate was 40% after urethral catheter removal and at 3rd month of the surgery mean continence rate was 94% for all patients. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that r-RPP is a feasible and efficient method. But still this method needs for further studies in this area.

Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy, complications and management: a single center experience.

OBJECTIVE: To present our experience with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), our complications and management modalities. Material and methods: Fifty-one transperitoneal LDNs performed in our clinic between the years 2011, and 2015, were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic characteristics of the patients, operative and postoperative data and complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Nineteen female and 32 male patients with ages ranging from 24 to 65 years underwent left- (n=44), and right-sided (n=7) LDNs. Six patients had two, and one patient three renal arteries. Mean operation time was 115±11 (min-max: 90-150) minutes, and mean warm ischemia time 111±9 (min-max: 90-140 sec) seconds. Mean hospital stay was found to be 2.5±0.5 days. No patient needed to switch to open surgery. In one patient, lumbar vein was ruptured, and hemostatic control was achieved laparoscopically. Postoperative paralytic ileus developed in two patients. Three patients had postoperative atelectasis, and a febrile (38.1°C) episode. CONCLUSION: LDN is a minimally invasive method with advantages of short hospital stay, less analgesic requirement, and better cosmetic results. However it should be performed by surgeons with advanced laparoscopic experience.

Comparison of antegrade and retrograde laparoscopic radical prostatectomy techniques.

We evaluated the effect of antegrade and retrograde approaches on functional recovery and surgical outcomes of extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). We analyzed 135 patients who underwent extraperitoneal LRP, with the retrograde technique performed on 42 (31%; Group 1) and the antegrade technique on 93 (69%; Group 2). Both groups were statistically similar with respect to age, clinical stage, preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, prostate volume, and previous surgical history. Mean operative time was significantly longer in Group 1 (244±18.3 vs. 203.3±18.4 min, p<0.001), whereas mean anastomosis times for both groups were similar (35.8±7.2 vs. 34.7±5.8 min, p=0.155). Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates were significantly lower in Group 2. A significant difference was observed for both hospitalization (6.79±3.3 vs. 5.46±3.08 days, respectively; p=0.026) and catheterization times (12.24±2.1 vs. 11±1.08 days, respectively; p=0.001) for Group 2. The total complication rate was 47.6% in Group 1, and 11.8% in Group 2 (p<0.01). Rates of positive surgical margins were 14.2% and 15% for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. At the 12-month interval from operation, similar recoveries in urinary continence were obtained for both groups (81% in Group 1; 91% in Group 2). Upon comparison of the two LRP techniques, we found that both were effective; however, the latter resulted in lower minor complication rate, lower blood loss, shorter operation time, and shorter length of hospital stay.