Privacy-proof Live Surgery Streaming: Development and Validation of a Low-cost, Real-time Robotic Surgery Anonymization Algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a pioneer surgical anonymization algorithm for reliable and accurate real-time removal of out-of-body images validated across various robotic platforms. BACKGROUND: The use of surgical video data has become a common practice in enhancing research and training. Video sharing requires complete anonymization, which, in the case of endoscopic surgery, entails the removal of all nonsurgical video frames where the endoscope can record the patient or operating room staff. To date, no openly available algorithmic solution for surgical anonymization offers reliable real-time anonymization for video streaming, which is also robotic-platform and procedure-independent. METHODS: A data set of 63 surgical videos of 6 procedures performed on four robotic systems was annotated for out-of-body sequences. The resulting 496.828 images were used to develop a deep learning algorithm that automatically detected out-of-body frames. Our solution was subsequently benchmarked against existing anonymization methods. In addition, we offer a postprocessing step to enhance the performance and test a low-cost setup for real-time anonymization during live surgery streaming. RESULTS: Framewise anonymization yielded a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve score of 99.46% on unseen procedures, increasing to 99.89% after postprocessing. Our Robotic Anonymization Network outperforms previous state-of-the-art algorithms, even on unseen procedural types, despite the fact that alternative solutions are explicitly trained using these procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our deep learning model, Robotic Anonymization Network, offers reliable, accurate, and safe real-time anonymization during complex and lengthy surgical procedures regardless of the robotic platform. The model can be used in real time for surgical live streaming and is openly available.

Does previous transurethral resection of the prostate affect the outcomes in robotic assisted radical prostatectomy?

PURPOSE: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is one of the surgical options for treating enlarged prostates with lower urinary symptoms (LUTS). In this older group of patients, concomitant prostate cancer is not uncommon. However, the fibrosis and distortion of the prostate anatomy by prior TURP can potentially hinder surgical efficacy at robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). We aim to evaluate functional, and oncologic outcomes of RARP in patients with and without previous TURP. METHODS: 231 men with previous TURP underwent RARP (TURP group). These men were propensity score matched using clinicopathological characteristics to men without previous TURP who underwent RARP (Control group). Perioperative and postoperative variables were analysed for significant differences in outcomes between groups. Variables analysed included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, catheter time, hospitalization time, postoperative complications, positive surgical margins (PSM) rates, cancer status, biochemical recurrence (BCR), potency, and continence rates. RESULTS: Patients in the TURP group showed no statistically significant differences in operative safety measures including median EBL, operative time, catheter time, hospitalization time or postoperative complications. No significant difference between the groups in terms of potency rates and continence rates. Furthermore, there were no statistically significant differences in oncological outcomes, including PSM rates (15% vs 18%, P = 0.3) and BCR. CONCLUSION: In RARP after TURP there is often noticeable distortion of the surgical anatomy. For an experienced team the procedure is safe and provides similar oncologic control and functional outcomes to RARP in patients without previous TURP.

Current practice and unmet training needs in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: investigation from the Junior ERUS/YAU working group.

PURPOSE: To access the current scenario of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy training in multiple centers worldwide. METHODS: We created a multiple-choice questionnaire assessing all details of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy training with 41 questions divided into three different categories (responder demography, surgical steps, and responder experience). The questionnaire was created and disseminated using the "Google Docs" platform. All responders had an individual invitation by direct message or Email. We selected urologists who had recently finished a postgraduation urologic robotic surgery training (fellowship) in the last five years. We sent 624 invitations to urologists from 138 centers, from January 10th to April 10th, 2022. The answers were reported as percentages and illustrated in pie charts. RESULTS: The response rate was 58% among all centers invited (138/81), 20% among all individual invitations (122/624 answers). Globally, we gathered responses from 23 countries. Most surgeons were older than 34 years, 71% trained in an academic center, and 64% performed less than ten full RARP cases. Transperitoneal is the most common access, and 63% routinely opens the endopelvic fascia. Almost 90% perform the Rocco's stitch, and 94% perform the anastomosis with barbed sutures. Finally, only 31% of surgeons assisted more than 100 cases before moving to the console, and most surgeons (63.9%) performed less than ten full RARP cases during their training. CONCLUSION: By assessing the robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy training status in 23 countries and 81 centers worldwide, we assessed the trainees' demography, step-by-step surgical technique, training perspectives, and impressions of surgeons who trained in the last five years. This data is crucial for a better understanding the trainee's standpoint, addressing potential deficiencies, and implementing improvements needed in the training process. Our study clearly indicates elements of current training modalities that are prone to major improvement.

Assessing Muscular Pain and Ergonomics Among Robotic Surgeons in China: A Validation.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic surgery has transformed minimally invasive procedures, offering precision and efficiency. However, the ergonomic aspects of robotic consoles and their impact on surgeon health remain understudied. This review investigates the burden of ergonomics and muscle fatigue among robotic surgeons in China, comparing the findings to a multinational study. METHODOLOGY: A literature review identified themes related to physical discomfort in robotic surgery. A questionnaire was administered to Chinese robotic surgeons, yielding 40 responses. The study assessed demographic characteristics, surgeon experience, ergonomic practices, reported discomfort, and pain-relief mechanisms. RESULTS: The study revealed that most surgeons experienced shoulder and neck pain, with mixed opinions on whether robotic surgery was the primary cause. Stretching exercises were commonly used for pain relief. Surgeons believed that case volume and surgery duration contributed to discomfort. Comparisons with a multinational study suggested potential demographic and experience-related differences. CONCLUSION: While the study has limitations, including a small sample size and potential translation issues, it underscores the importance of addressing ergonomic concerns and providing proper training to robotic surgeons to ensure their well-being and longevity in the field. Further research with larger cohorts and platform-specific analyses is warranted.

Step-by-step Peritoneal Bladder Flap Bunching (PBFB) technique: an innovative approach following lymph node dissection in robotic radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has become a popular surgical approach for localized prostate cancer due to its favorable oncological and functional outcomes, as well as lower morbidity. In cases of intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer, bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy (PLND) is recommended as an adjunct to RARP (1-3). Despite its benefits, PLND can lead to surgical complications, with postoperative lymphocele formation being the most common. Most postoperative lymphoceles are clinically insignificant with variable incidence, reaching up to 60% of cases 4. However, a small percentage of patients 2-8% may experience symptomatic lymphoceles (SL), which can cause significant morbidity (4, 5). SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: We perform our RARP technique with our standard approach in all patients (6). After vesicourethral anastomosis a modified PF created to prevent symptomatic lymphocele. We start by suturing the peritoneal fold on the right side, medially to the vas deferens, followed by a similar stitch on the left side to approximate the edges in the midline. A running suture bunches the bladder peritoneum from both sides, passing through the pubic bone periosteum to secure it in place (7). This approach keeps the lateral pelvic gutters open for lymphatic drainage, while allowing fluid drainage from the true pelvis into the abdomen. A pelvic ultrasound was done for all patients at 6 weeks post operative, and additional clinical follow-up was carried out at 3 months following surgery. CONSIDERATIONS: We have demonstrated a modified technique of peritoneal flap (PBFB) with an initial decrease in postoperative symptomatic lymphoceles, the technique is feasible, safe, does not add significant morbidity, and does not require a learning curve.

Impacts on functional and oncological outcomes of Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy 10 years after the US Preventive Service Taskforce recommendations against PSA screening.

OBJECTIVE: In the following years after the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation against prostate cancer screening with PSA in 2012, several authors worldwide described an increase in higher grades and aggressive prostate tumors. In this scenario, we aim to evaluate the potential impacts of USPSTF recommendations on the functional and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in a referral center. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We included 11396 patients who underwent RARP between 2008 and 2021. Each patient had at least a 12-month follow-up. The cohort was divided into two groups based on an inflection point in the outcomes at the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013. The inflection point period was detected by Bayesian regression with multiple change points and regression with unknown breakpoints. We reported continuous variables as median and interquartile range (IQR) and categorical variables as absolute and relative percent frequencies. RESULTS: Group 1 had 4760 patients, and Group 2 had 6636 patients, with a median follow-up of 109 and 38 months, respectively. In the final pathology, Group 2 had 9.5% increase in tumor volume, 24% increase on Gleason ≥ 4+3 (ISUP 3) , and 18% increase on ≥ pT3. This translated to a 6% increase in positive surgical margins and 24% reduction in full nerve sparing in response to the worsening pathology. There was a significant decline in post-operative outcomes in Group 2, including a 12-month continence reduction of 9%, reduction in potency by 27%, and reduction of trifecta by 22%. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing number of high-risk patients has led to worse functional and oncologic outcomes. The initial rapid rise in PSM was leveled by the move towards more partial nerve sparing. Among some historical changes in prostate cancer diagnosis and management in the period of our study, the USPSTF recommendation coincided with worse outcomes of prostate cancer treatment in a population who could benefit from PSA screening at the appropriate time.

Complications of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: multi-institutional analysis from the Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the perioperative complications of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on the prospectively maintained, Institutional Review Board-approved, multi-institutional Single-Port Advanced Research Consortium (SPARC) database. A total of 1103 patients were identified who underwent three different approaches of SP-RARP between 2019 and 2022 using the purpose-built SP robotic platform. In addition to baseline clinical, perioperative outcomes, this study comprehensively analysed for any evidence of intraoperative complication, as well as postoperative complication and readmission within 90 days of the respective surgery. RESULTS: Of the 244, 712, and 147 patients who underwent transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, and transvesical SP-RARP, respectively, intraoperative complications were noted in five patients (0.4%), all of which occurred during the transperitoneal approach. Two patients had bowel serosal tears, two had posterior button-holing of the bladder necessitating repair, and one patient had an obturator nerve injury. Postoperative complications were noted in 143 patients (13%) with major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade ≥III) only identified in 3.7% of the total cohort. The most common complications were lymphocele (3.9%), acute urinary retention (2%), and urinary tract infection (1.9%). The 90-day re-admission rate was 3.9%. CONCLUSION: The SP-RARP is a safe and effective procedure with low complication and readmission rates regardless of the approach. These results are comparable to current multi-port RARP literature.

Technical and anatomical challenges to approach robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with Urolift®.

INTRODUCTION: Urolift® is a surgical modality to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with enlarged prostates (1). However, the inflammatory process caused by the device usually displaces the prostate's anatomical landmarks and challenges surgeons performing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). In this video, we will illustrate several technical challenges in patients with Urolift ® who underwent RARP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a video compilation with several surgical steps illustrating key aspects and critical details of the anterior bladder neck access, lateral bladder dissection from the prostate, and posterior prostate dissection to avoid ureteral and neural bundles injuries. RESULTS: We perform our RARP technique with our standard approach in all patients (2-6). The beginning of the case is performed like every patient with an enlarged prostate. We first identify the anterior bladder neck and then complete its dissection with Maryland and Scissors. However, extra care must be taken in the anterior and posterior bladder neck approach due to the clips found during the dissection. The challenge starts when opening the lateral sides of the bladder until the base of the prostate. It is crucial to perform the bladder neck dissection beginning at the internal plane of the bladder wall. Such dissection is the easiest way to recognize the anatomical landmarks and potential foreign materials, such as clips, placed during previous surgeries. We cautiously work around the clip to avoid using cautery on the top of the metal clips because energy is transmitted from one edge to the other of the Urolift ®. This can be dangerous if the edge of the clip is close to the ureteral orifices. The clips are usually removed to minimize cautery conduction energy. Finally, after isolating and removing the clips, the prostate dissection and subsequent surgical steps are continued with our conventional technique. Before proceeding, we ensure that all clips are removed from the bladder neck to avoid complications during the anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with Urolift ® is challenging due to modified anatomical landmarks and intense inflammatory processes in the posterior bladder neck. When dissecting the clips placed next to the base of the prostate, it is crucial to avoid cautery because energy conduction to the other edge of the Urolift ® can cause thermal damage to the ureters and neural bundles.

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.

Outcomes of Salvage Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy in the last decade: systematic review and perspectives of referral centers.

PURPOSE: Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) has gained prominence in recent years for treating patients with cancer recurrence following non-surgical treatments of Prostate Cancer. We conducted a systematic literature review to evaluate the role and outcomes of S-RARP over the past decade. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, encompassing articles published between January 1st, 2013, and June 1st, 2023, on S-RARP outcomes. Articles were screened according to PRISMA guidelines, resulting in 33 selected studies. Data were extracted, including patient demographics, operative times, complications, functional outcomes, and oncological outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1,630 patients from 33 studies, radiotherapy was the most common primary treatment (42%). Operative times ranged from 110 to 303 minutes, with estimated blood loss between 50 to 745 mL. Intraoperative complications occurred in 0 to 9% of cases, while postoperative complications ranged from 0 to 90% (Clavien 1-5). Continence rates varied (from 0 to 100%), and potency rates ranged from 0 to 66.7%. Positive surgical margins were reported up to 65.6%, and biochemical recurrence ranged from 0 to 57%. CONCLUSION: Salvage robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with cancer recurrence after previous prostate cancer treatment is safe and feasible. The literature is based on retrospective studies with inherent limitations describing low rates of intraoperative complications and small blood loss. However, potency and continence rates are largely reduced compared to the primary RARP series, despite the type of the primary treatment. Better-designed studies to assess the long-term outcomes and individually specify each primary therapy impact on the salvage treatment are still needed. Future articles should be more specific and provide more details regarding the previous therapies and S-RARP surgical techniques.

Neurovascular bundle preservation in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: How I do it after 15.000 cases.

Despite the neuroanatomy knowledge of the prostate described initially in the 1980's and the robotic surgery advantages in terms of operative view magnification, potency outcomes following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy still challenge surgeons and patients due to its multifactorial etiology. Recent studies performed in our center have described that, in addition to the surgical technique, some important factors are associated with erectile dysfunction (ED) following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). These include preoperative Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score, age, preoperative Gleason score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). After performing 15,000 cases, in this article we described our current Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy technique with details and considerations regarding the optimal approach to neurovascular bundle preservation.

Nerve-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: how I do it after 15.000 cases.

INTRODUCTION: Over the years, since Binder and Kramer described the first Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP) in 2000, different Nerve-sparing (NS) techniques have been proposed by several authors (1). However, even with the robotic surgery advantages, functional outcomes following RARP, especially erection recovery, still challenge surgeons and patients (2, 3). In this scenario, we have described different ways and grades of neurovascular bundle preservation (NVB) using the prostatic artery as a landmark until our most recent technique with lateral prostatic fascia preservation and modified apical dissection (4-6). In this video compilation, we have illustrated the anatomical and technical details of different grades of NVB preservation. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: After the anterior and posterior bladder neck dissection, we lift the prostate by the seminal vesicles to access the posterior aspect of the prostate. Then, we incise the Denonvilliers layers and work between an avascular plane to release the posterior NVB from 5 to 1 and 7 to 11 o'clock positions on the right and left sides, respectively6. In sequence, we access the prostate anteriorly by incising the endopelvic fascia bilaterally (close to the prostate) until communicating the anterior and posterior planes. Finally, we control the prostatic pedicles with Hem-o-lok clips and then proceed for the apical dissection preserving the maximum amount of urethra length and periurethral tissues. Considerations: Potency recovery following radical prostatectomy remains a challenge due to its multifactorial etiology. However, basic concepts for nerve-sparing are crucial to achieving optimal outcomes, such as minimizing the amount of traction used on dissection, avoiding excessive cautery, and neural preservation based on anatomical landmarks (arteries and planes of dissection).

Minimally invasive lymphocele drainage using the Da Vinci® single port platform: step-by- step technique.

BACKGROUND: Reports in the literature describe lymphocele formation in up to half of patients following pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) (1) in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), with 1-2% requiring intervention (2). The advantage of surgical approach is permanent excision of the lymphocele capsule and fewer days with pelvic drains compared to percutaneous drainage. This study aims to describe the step-by-step surgical management of symptomatic lymphoceles using a less invasive robotic platform, the Da Vinci® Single Port (SP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We describe the technique of lymphocelectomy and marsupialization with the Da Vinci® SP for symptomatic lymphocele. For this study, several treatment modalities for symptomatic lymphoceles were available, including percutaneous drainage, sclerosing agents, and surgical marsupialization. All the data for this study were obtained through the procedure via Da Vinci® SP. RESULTS: Operative time for the case was 84 minutes. Blood loss was 25ml. No intra- or post- operative complications were reported. The patient had his drain removed in under 24 hours after surgery. The mean follow-up period was 7.7 months. There were no complications or lymphocele recurrence. CONCLUSION: Da Vinci® SP lymphocelectomy is safe and feasible with satisfactory outcomes. The SP enables definitive treatment of the lymphocele sac (3), reducing the number of days with abdominal drains and allows further decrease in surgical invasiveness with fewer incisions and better cosmesis.

Comparing the outcomes of robotic assisted radical prostatectomy in black and white men: Experience of a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Global cancer incidence ranks Prostate Cancer (CaP) as the second highest overall, with Africa and the Caribbean having the highest mortality. Previous literature suggests disparities in CaP outcomes according to ethnicity, specifically functional and oncological are suboptimal in black men. However, recent data shows black men achieve post radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes equivalent to white men in a universally insured system. Our objective is to compare outcomes of patients who self-identified their ethnicity as black or white undergoing RP at our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2008 to 2017, 396 black and 4929 white patients underwent primary robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Exclusion criteria were concomitant surgery and cancer status not available. A propensity score (PS) match was performed with a 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 ratio without replacement. Primary endpoints were potency, continence recovery, biochemical recurrence (BCR), positive surgical margins (PSM), and post-operative complications. RESULTS: After PS 1:1 matching, 341 black vs. 341 white men with a median follow-up of approximately 8 years were analyzed. The overall potency and continence recovery at 12 months was 52% vs 58% (p=0.3) and 82% vs 89% (p=0.3), respectively. PSM rates was 13.4 % vs 14.4% (p = 0.75). Biochemical recurrence and persistence PSA was 13.8% vs 14.1% and 4.4% vs 3.2% respectively (p=0.75). Clavien-Dindo complications (p=0.4) and 30-day readmission rates (p=0.5) were similar. CONCLUSION: In our study, comparing two ethnic groups with similar preoperative characteristics and full access to screening and treatment showed compatible RARP results. We could not demonstrate outcomes superiority in one group over the other. However, this data adds to the growing body of evidence that the racial disparity gap in prostate cancer outcomes can be narrowed if patients have appropriate access to prostate cancer management. It also could be used in counseling surgeons and patients on the surgical intervention and prognosis of prostate cancer in patients with full access to gold-standard screening and treatment.

Contemporary techniques of da Vinci SP radical prostatectomy: multicentric collaboration and expert opinion.

BACKGROUND: The da Vinci SP robot consists of an innovative single port trocar that houses a flexible camera and three biarticulated arms, which minimizes the number of incisions to assess the surgical site, allowing a less invasive procedure. However, due to its recent release in the market, the current literature reporting SP-RARP is still restricted to a few centers. In this scenario, after performing a literature search with all available techniques of SP-RARP, our objective is to report a multicentric opinion of referral centers on different techniques to approach SP-RARP. RESULTS: The SP literature is provided by only a few centers due to the limited number of this new console in the market. Five different approaches are available: transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, Retzius-Sparing, transperineal and transvesical. None of the current studies describe long-term functional or oncological outcomes. However, all approaches had satisfactory operative performance with minimum complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: Several techniques of SP-RARP have been reported in the literature. We performed a multicentric collaboration describing and illustrating the most challenging steps of this surgery. We believe that the details provided in this article are useful teaching material for new centers willing to adopt the SP technology.

Da Vinci SP radical prostatectomy: a multicentric collaboration and step-by-step techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Several techniques of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the da Vinci SP (SP) have been described since its clearance by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in 2018 (1, 2). Even with the expanding literature about this robot, the SP technology has been restricted to a few centers in the US and Asia due to the recent release of this robot in the marked.3 In this scenario, we provided, in this video compilation, a consensus of SP referral centers describing the current approaches and techniques of da Vinci SP Radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP). SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: We have illustrated five different techniques, including transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, Retzius-sparing, transvesical, and transperineal (4-6). Each surgery demonstrated crucial steps from the trocar placement until anastomosis. All approaches follow anatomic concepts and landmarks to minimize positive surgical margins, optimize oncological outcomes and promote optimal functional recovery. The trocar placement and the use of an assistant port were selected according to the operative technique of each institution. None of these surgeries had intra- or postoperative complications, and the pain management until discharge was controlled without using narcotics. All patients were discharged in less than 16 hours of surgery. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy performed with the da Vinci SP is feasible and safe with optimal perioperative outcomes. Five different approaches were described in this video compilation, and we believe that the technical details provided by this multicentric collaboration are crucial for centers willing to initiate the SP approach to radical prostatectomy.

A Predictive Preoperative and Postoperative Nomogram for Postoperative Potency Recovery after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Prediction of potency recovery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is useful for better patient counseling and postoperative treatment strategies. In this study we propose a preoperative and postoperative nomogram to predict postoperative potency recovery following RARP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from development set (6,502) were selected to develop the nomograms, and patients in validation set (2,706) were used for validation. Cox regression models were fitted on the development cohort to predict potency recovery after RARP using as prognostic factors the covariates selected. Two nomograms were drawn using the regression coefficients of the preoperative and postoperative Cox models. RESULTS: The discrimination ability of the preoperative model was evaluated on the development cohort using the receiver operator curves estimated at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. The AUC at these time points was 0.726, 0.734, 0.754, and 0.778, respectively. The areas under the curve of the postoperative model at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months were 0.746, 0.756 and 0.777, and 0.801, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative predictive models were validated using a separate set of 2,706 patients. The AUCs of the preoperative model at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months were 0.789, 0.772, 0.768, and 0.778, respectively. The ROC curves of the postoperative model at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months with AUCs of 0.807, 0.797, 0.793 and 0.798, respectively. Along with age and preoperative sexual function, nerve-sparing technique determines the potency outcomes justifying better AUC for postoperative model vs the preoperative model. CONCLUSIONS: The above nomograms help us to predict with good accuracy the probability of potency recovery within 3, 6, 12 and 24 months following surgery taking into consideration preoperative and postoperative factors. This is a novel tool for the care giver to predict realistic expectation of potency outcomes to the patients, while preoperative and immediate postoperative counseling.

Early outcomes of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: lessons learned from the learning-curve experience.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the crucial factors related to the implementation of the da Vinci single-port (SP) system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), and the early outcomes after the introduction of this robot for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We prospectively collected data from 50 consecutive patients with prostate adenocarcinoma who underwent RARP using this robot. The median follow-up was 53 days. We performed a transperitoneal technique. The robotic (multiport) trocar was placed on the supra-umbilical midline 20 cm from the pubis and an assistant trocar placed in the right lower quadrant. We report our initial experience describing the intra- and postoperative outcomes associated with this new robot. Also, we report the early functional and oncological outcomes in the follow-up period considered. Continuous variables were described as medians and interquartile ranges, while categorical variables as frequencies and proportions. RESULTS: The median total operative time was 118 min, median console time was 80 min, and median estimated blood loss was 50 mL. There were no intraoperative complications or blood transfusions. The final pathology reported 18% Grade Group (GrGp)1, 58% GrGp2, 18% GrGp3, 2% GrGp4, and 4% GrGp5. In all, 40 patients (80%) were pT2 and 20% were ≥pT3a. The overall positive surgical margin rate was 14%. In all, 39 patients (78%) achieved full continence at median of 21 days after RARP. The median pain scale (0-10) score at 8, 12 and 16 h after RARP was 2, 2, and 0, respectively. CONCLUSION: The use of the da Vinci SP robot with an additional assistant port for RARP is technically safe and feasible, with acceptable short-term functional and oncological outcomes. However, there is a technical learning curve for this new platform due to the smaller scope of the operative field and the decreased flexibility and strength of the surgical instruments.

Management of patients who opt for radical prostatectomy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: an international accelerated consensus statement.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused delays in definitive treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Beyond the immediate delay a backlog for future patients is expected. The objective of this work is to develop guidance on criteria for prioritisation of surgery and reconfiguring management pathways for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer who opt for surgical treatment. A second aim was to identify the infection prevention and control (IPC) measures to achieve a low likelihood of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hazard if radical prostatectomy (RP) was to be carried out during the outbreak and whilst the disease is endemic. METHODS: We conducted an accelerated consensus process and systematic review of the evidence on COVID-19 and reviewed international guidance on prostate cancer. These were presented to an international prostate cancer expert panel (n = 34) through an online meeting. The consensus process underwent three rounds of survey in total. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from the previous rounds. The Consensus opinion was defined as ≥80% agreement and this was used to reconfigure the prostate cancer pathways. RESULTS: Evidence on the delayed management of patients with prostate cancer is scarce. There was 100% agreement that prostate cancer pathways should be reconfigured and measures developed to prevent nosocomial COVID-19 for patients treated surgically. Consensus was reached on prioritisation criteria of patients for surgery and management pathways for those who have delayed treatment. IPC measures to achieve a low likelihood of nosocomial COVID-19 were coined as 'COVID-19 cold' sites. CONCLUSION: Reconfiguring management pathways for patients with prostate cancer is recommended if significant delay (>3-6 months) in surgical management is unavoidable. The mapped pathways provide guidance for such patients. The IPC processes proposed provide a framework for providing RP within an environment with low COVID-19 risk during the outbreak or when the disease remains endemic. The broader concepts could be adapted to other indications beyond prostate cancer surgery.

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion decreases postoperative complications only in highly comorbid patients: findings that rely on a standardized methodology recommended by the European Association of Urology Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The available studies comparing robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) with intracorporeal (ICUD) vs. extracorporeal (ECUD) urinary diversion have not relied on a standardized methodology to report complications and did not assess the effect of different approaches on postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS: Two hundred and sixty seven patients treated with RARC at a single center were assessed. A retrospective analysis of data prospectively collected according to a standardized methodology was performed. Multivariable logistic regression models (MVA) assessed the impact of ICUD vs. ECUD on intraoperative complications, prolonged length of stay (LOS), 30-day Clavien Dindo (CD) ≥ 2 complications and readmission rate. Interaction terms tested the impact of the approach on different patient subgroups. Lowess graphically depicted the probability of CD ≥ 2 after ICUD or ECUD according to patient baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 162 ICUD vs 105 ECUD (61 vs. 39%) were performed. Intraoperative complications were recorded in 24 patients. The median LOS and readmission rate were 11 vs. 13 (p = 0.02) and 24 vs. 22% (p = 0.7) in ICUD vs. ECUD, respectively. Overall, 227 postoperative complications were recorded. The overall rate of CD ≥ 2 was 35 and 43% in patients with ICUD vs. ECUD, respectively (p = 0.2). At MVA, the approach type was not an independent predictor of any postoperative outcomes (all p ≥ 0.4). Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) was associated with an increased risk of CD ≥ 2 (OR: 1.2, p = 0.006). We identified a significant interaction term between ACCI and approach type (p = 0.04), where patients with ICUD had lower risk of CD ≥ 2 relative to those with ECUD with increasing ACCI. CONCLUSIONS: Relying on a standardized methodology to report complications, we observed that highly comorbid patients who undergo ICUD have lower risk of postoperative complications relative to those patients who received ECUD.