3D laparoscopic prostatectomy: A prospective single-surgeon learning curve in the first 200 cases with oncologic and functional results.

BACKGROUND: Studies for 3D-laparoscopic prostatectomy (3D-LRP) learning curve and surgical results are lacking. Combining 3D vision to LRP attenuates differences compared to Robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) with similar mini-invasiveness but lower costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred consecutive men with localized prostate cancer underwent 3D-LRP at Seinäjoki central hospital between 2013 and 2018. Oncological and functional results were documented. Long-term functional evaluation was done using EPIC-26 survey. Clavien-Dindo classification was used to assess complications during first 3 months. All operations were performed by a single surgeon (M.R.) with no experience of LRP or 3D-LRP. The learning curve was assessed by evaluating urethral anastomosis- and total operative time. Perioperative and postoperative data was collected prospectively during surgery and at subsequent control visits up to minimum of 1 year. RESULTS: A plateau in anastomosis time was reached after 30 cases and in operative time after 60 cases. Median operative time was 114 min (78-258 min) and median time for anastomosis was 25 min (11-90 min). Median blood loss was 150 ml (10-800 ml); 93.5% of the patients were discharged within the first 3 days. Clavien-Dindo ≥3a complications occurred in 6.5%. Positive surgical margins occurred in 23%. One-year after the operation, 93.3% had PSA ≤ 0.1; 91.9% of the patients were dry or used one daytime pad. EPIC-26 scores were as follows: Urinary incontinence 79.25 (14.5-100), urinary irritative/obstructive 93.75 (31.25-100), bowel 100 (33.33-100), sexual 36.17 (0-100) and hormonal 95 (37.5-100). CONCLUSION: The learning curve for 3D laparoscopic prostatectomy is comparable to RALP, which makes it a cost-effective alternative with comparable oncological and functional results.

Off-Clamp Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy: Is There Something More to Achieve Optimal Trifecta Outcomes?

Objectives: To report trifecta outcomes of our "off-clamp" partial nephrectomy (PN) patients operated without main renal artery and/or any selective/superselective clamping. Materials and Methods: Between April 2008 and March 2020, 52 patients received "off-clamp" robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Postoperative sixth month estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and eGFR decrease were considered for renal function evaluation. Patients with negative surgical margins, <15% postoperative eGFR decrease and absence of grade ≥2 Clavien-Dindo complications were reported to achieve trifecta outcomes. Results: Mean age and body mass index of the patients were 57.51 ± 12.99 years and 27.23 ± 4.35 kg/m2, respectively. Mean preoperative hematocrit, serum creatinine, and eGFR were 42.01 ± 3.86%, 0.92 ± 0.28 mg/dL, and 85.26 ± 21.27 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Mean tumor size was 30.32 ± 13.64 mm. Mean PADUA and RENAL scores were 7.63 ± 1.46 and 6.21 ± 1.63, respectively. One patient had focal surgical margin positivity. Mean console time and estimated blood loss was 82.11 ± 38.51 minutes and 280.76 ± 278.98 mL, respectively. Complications were observed in two (4%) patients (one Clavien I, one Clavien IIIB). At postoperative sixth month, serum creatinine and eGFR were 0.95 ± 0.32 mg/dL and 83.65 ± 22.44 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Eventually seven patients had ≥15% postoperative eGFR decrease, one patient had grade ≥2 complication and one patient had positive surgical margin. Forty-three (83%) patients fulfilled trifecta outcomes. Conclusion: Off-clamp PN is important for optimal renal function preservation. Patient selection and additional operative measures along with experience in robotic procedure can contribute achievement of optimal trifecta outcomes.

Comparison of Partial and Radical Laparascopic Nephrectomy: Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes for Clinical T2 Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Nephron-sparing surgery has emerged as the treatment of choice for small renal masses. However, its role in larger tumors remains controversial. In this study, we compare the outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN) vs those of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy (LRN) for T2 renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients who had LPN and 16 patients who had LRN for T2 renal tumors were retrospectively analyzed for preoperative factors (age, gender, comorbidities, hemoglobin, and creatinine levels and estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]), operative and perioperative characteristics (tumor characteristics, operative time [OT], warm ischemia time [WIT], estimated blood loss [EBL], length of stay [LOS], and postoperative complications), histopathologic results, and follow-up data (eGFR and recurrences). RESULTS: Tumor size was comparable between groups; however, tumors in the LRN group were more endophytic, central, and closer to the collecting system. There were no cases of positive surgical margins. Median OT was 160 minutes vs 230 minutes (p = 0.0029) and EBL was 25 mL vs 100 mL ([p = 0.0027], LRN vs LPN). Median WIT in the LPN group was 27 minutes, with three zero ischemias. Minor postoperative complications (≤Clavien-Dindo III) were noted in 6.25% and 23% (LRN vs LPN). Median LOS was 4.56 and 5.77 days (LRN vs LPN), respectively. Mean postsurgery eGFR was significantly lower for the LRN group (54.5 cc/[min ·1.73 m2] vs 76.3 cc/[min ·1.73 m2], p = 0.019). Within mean follow-up of 44.5 months, one tumor recurrence in the contra lateral kidney was observed in the LPN group and two cases of metastasis in the LRN group. CONCLUSIONS: We show that LPN is technically feasible for T2 tumors, with acceptable intra- and perioperative outcomes. Furthermore, our results show a significant advantage in preservation of renal function for LPN without compromising oncologic results. Taken together, we believe that LPN should be considered for larger tumors based on technical feasibility rather than only tumor size.