Implementation and outcomes of Hugo(TM) RAS System in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The results and benefits of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) are already established in the literature. However, new robotic platforms have been released recently in the market and their outcomes are still unknown. In this scenario, our objective is to describe our experience implementing the HugoTM RAS robot and report the clinical data of patients who underwent Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed fifteen consecutive patients who underwent RARP with HugoTM RAS System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) from June to October 2021. The patients underwent transperitoneal RARP on lithotomy position, using six trocars (4 robotic trocars and 2 for the assistant). We reported the clinical feasibility and safety of this platform, assessing perioperative data, including complications and early outcomes. Continuous variables were reported as median and interquartile ranges, categorical variables as frequencies and proportions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: All procedures were safe and feasible with no major complications or conversion. Median operative time was 235 minutes (213-271), and median estimated blood loss was 300ml (100-310). Positive surgical margins were reported in 5 patients (33%). The median hospitalization time was 2 days (2-2), and the median time to remove the foley was 7 days (7-7). On the first appointment four weeks after surgery, all patients had undetectable PSA values, and 61% were continent. CONCLUSIONS: We described preliminary results with safe and feasible procedures performed with HugoTM RAS System robotic platform. The surgeries were successfully executed with acceptable perioperative outcomes, without conversions or major complications. However, as this technology is very recent, further studies with a long-term follow-up are awaited to access postoperative functional and oncological outcomes.

Implementation and outcomes of HugoTM RAS System in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy

ABSTRACT Background The results and benefits of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) are already established in the literature. However, new robotic platforms have been released recently in the market and their outcomes are still unknown. In this scenario, our objective is to describe our experience implementing the HugoTM RAS robot and report the clinical data of patients who underwent Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Material and Methods We retrospectively analyzed fifteen consecutive patients who underwent RARP with HugoTM RAS System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) from June to October 2021. The patients underwent transperitoneal RARP on lithotomy position, using six trocars (4 robotic trocars and 2 for the assistant). We reported the clinical feasibility and safety of this platform, assessing perioperative data, including complications and early outcomes. Continuous variables were reported as median and interquartile ranges, categorical variables as frequencies and proportions. Results and Limitations All procedures were safe and feasible with no major complications or conversion. Median operative time was 235 minutes (213-271), and median estimated blood loss was 300ml (100-310). Positive surgical margins were reported in 5 patients (33%). The median hospitalization time was 2 days (2-2), and the median time to remove the foley was 7 days (7-7). On the first appointment four weeks after surgery, all patients had undetectable PSA values, and 61% were continent. Conclusions We described preliminary results with safe and feasible procedures performed with HugoTM RAS System robotic platform. The surgeries were successfully executed with acceptable perioperative outcomes, without conversions or major complications. However, as this technology is very recent, further studies with a long-term follow-up are awaited to access postoperative functional and oncological outcomes.

Management of rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Because laparoscopic radical prostatectomy remains a challenging procedure, rectal injury is always a potential complication. We review the incidence of rectal injuries at our institution in the first 110 consecutive laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine (8%) out of the first 110 laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomies performed between December 2001 and February 2004, were complicated by rectal injury. Mean patient age was 64.9 years (range 52 to 74) and mean prostate specific antigen was 11.45 ng/mL (range 4.8 to 37.4). Median preoperative Gleason score was 6 (range 4 to 8) and clinical stage was T1c, T2a, T2b in 6, 2 and 1 patient, respectively. Mean operative time was 228 minutes (range 150 to 300). RESULTS: From 9 injuries, 6 were diagnosed and repaired intraoperatively and 3 were diagnosed postoperatively. From the 6 cases of intraoperative diagnosis and repair, 3 patients healed primarily without colostomy and a recto-urinary fistula was evidenced by pneumaturia in the remaining three. These 3 patients were managed conservatively with urethral catheterization during 30 days. One of the patients required secondary fistula repair by anterior transphincteric, transanal surgical approach (ASTRA). Urinary fistula was diagnosed postoperatively on 3 patients. A diverting colostomy was performed on one patient with secondary fistula repair by ASTRA. Another patient required laparotomy due to peritonitis and urinary fistula was later managed with ASTRA. On the third patient conservative management with urethral catheter was successful. All fistulas repaired with ASTRA evolved uneventfully. There was no perioperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy can be managed intraoperatively or by a minimally invasive procedure without the need of colostomy. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a challenging procedure and is associated with a very flat learning curve; the incidence of rectal injuries is prone to diminish with experience.

Anterior transanal, transsphincteric sagittal approach for fistula repair secondary to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a simple and effective technique.

INTRODUCTION: To report our experience with the anterior, transanal, transsphincteric, sagittal approach in the correction of rectourinary fistula secondary to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS: Of the first 110 laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomies performed from December 2001 to February 2004, 9 (8%) were complicated by rectal injury. Of the nine rectal lesions, seven were diagnosed intraoperatively and the rectal defects closed laparoscopically. Primary repair failed in 1 of the 7 patients. In 2 other patients, the rectal injuries were missed intraoperatively, and a rectourinary fistula later developed. Rectourinary fistula was confirmed in these 3 patients by cystoscopy and digital rectal examination. The procedure chosen for repair was the anterior sagittal transrectal anal approach. The time from diagnosis to fistula repair was 1 to 3 months. Fistula repair was successful in all patients. The mean follow-up was 12 to 24 months. No patient presented with fecal incontinence or anal strictures. Postprostatectomy urinary continence was not affected by the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The transsphincteric transanal surgical approach provides many advantages for the repair of acquired urethrorectal fistulas after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. It allows for good surgical exposure and fistula tract identification and ensures good access to well-vascularized tissue. This surgical technique is simple, effective, reproducible, and associated with minimal morbidity.

Management of rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE: Because laparoscopic radical prostatectomy remains a challenging procedure, rectal injury is always a potential complication. We review the incidence of rectal injuries at our institution in the first 110 consecutive laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine (8 percent) out of the first 110 laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomies performed between December 2001 and February 2004, were complicated by rectal injury. Mean patient age was 64.9 years (range 52 to 74) and mean prostate specific antigen was 11.45 ng/mL (range 4.8 to 37.4). Median preoperative Gleason score was 6 (range 4 to 8) and clinical stage was T1c, T2a, T2b in 6, 2 and 1 patient, respectively. Mean operative time was 228 minutes (range 150 to 300). RESULTS: From 9 injuries, 6 were diagnosed and repaired intraoperatively and 3 were diagnosed postoperatively. From the 6 cases of intraoperative diagnosis and repair, 3 patients healed primarily without colostomy and a recto-urinary fistula was evidenced by pneumaturia in the remaining three. These 3 patients were managed conservatively with urethral catheterization during 30 days. One of the patients required secondary fistula repair by anterior transphincteric, transanal surgical approach (ASTRA). Urinary fistula was diagnosed postoperatively on 3 patients. A diverting colostomy was performed on one patient with secondary fistula repair by ASTRA. Another patient required laparotomy due to peritonitis and urinary fistula was later managed with ASTRA. On the third patient conservative management with urethral catheter was successful. All fistulas repaired with ASTRA evolved uneventfully. There was no perioperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Rectal injury during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy can be managed intraoperatively or by a minimally invasive procedure without the need of colostomy. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is a challenging procedure and is associated with a very flat flat learning curve; the incidence of rectal injuries is prone to diminish with experience.