Robotic radical cystectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Radical cystectomy (RC) is one of the most complex and morbid surgical procedures in Urology. Several retrospective and prospective studies have demonstrated that robotic-assisted RC (RARC) represents a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery, showing non-inferiority in mid-term oncological outcomes. Moreover, important advantages related with  perioperative complications have also been published. The aim of this article is to describe RARC surgical steps and to review the most relevant ndings in the eld of RARC, focusing on its strengths and weaknesses when compared with open RC. METHODS: We performed a detailed step-by-step description of the RARC surgical technique, paying particular attention to its specific surgical details and adding our tips and tricks for an out standing performance. We also conducted a review of the most relevant articles in literature in terms of oncological, pathological and perioperative results. All these findings have been compared with the classical open radical cystectomy (ORC) technique. RESULTS: None of the studies published have demonstrated RARC to have worse oncological outcomes (PSM,RFS, CSS, OS) compared to ORC. RARC shows a decrease in blood loss and transfusion rates. No differences have been observed in complications rate, length of hospital stay, quality of life, and time to bowel movement between both approaches. The two disadvantages of RARC compared to ORC are a longer operative time and increased cost. Operating time can be reduced with surgeons gaining experience and technique standardization. The cost disparities and operative time between ORC and RARC at high-volume academic centers are less pronounced than in the general medical community. CONCLUSIONS: RARC is a technically feasible and safe approach, with oncological, pathological and perioperative results, at least, equivalent to ORC.

ARTICULO SOLO EN INGLES.OBJETIVO: La cistectomía radical (CR) esuno de los procedimientos quirúrgicos más complejosy con mayor morbilidad. Varios estudios retrospectivosy prospectivos han demostrado que la CR asistida porrobot (CRAR) representa una alternativa mínimamente invasivaa la cirugía abierta, mostrando no inferioridad enlos resultados oncológicos a medio plazo. Además, sehan publicado importantes ventajas en relación con lascomplicaciones peroperatorias. El objetivo de este artículoes describir los pasos quirúrgicos de la CRAR y revisarlos hallazgos más relevantes en el campo de la CRAR,focalizando en sus fortalezas y debilidades cuando secomparan con la CR abierta. MÉTODOS: Realizamos una descripción paso a paso,detallada, de la técnica quirúrgica de CRAR, poniendoparticular atención a sus detalles quirúrgicos específicos yañadiendo nuestros trucos y consejos para una ejecución excelente. También realizamos una revisión de los artículos más relevantes de la literatura en términos de resultadosoncológicos, patológicos y peroperatorios. Todosestos hallazgos se han comparado con los de la técnicaclásica de cistectomía radical abierta (CRA). RESULTADOS: Ninguno de los estudios publicados hademostrado que la CRAR tenga peores resultados oncológicos(márgenes quirúrgicos positivos, supervivencia librede recurrencia, cáncer específica y global) en comparación con la CRA. La CRAR muestra un descenso del sangradoy las tasas de transfusión. No se han observadodiferencias entre ambos abordajes en las tasas de complicaciones,estancias hospitalarias, calidad de vida y eltiempo hasta la deposición. Dos desventajas de la CRARen comparación con la CRA son el tiempo operatoriomás largo y el aumento del coste. El tiempo operatorio puede reducirse con el aumento de la experiencia de loscirujanos y la estandarización de la técnica. Las disparidadesen los costes y la duración de la cirugía son menospronunciadas en centros académicos de gran volumen que en los de la comunidad médica general. CONCLUSIONES: La CRAR es un abordaje técnicamentefactible y seguro, con resultados oncológicos, patológicosy peroperatorios, al menos, equivalentes a los dela CRA.

Effect of green tea catechins in patients with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: Results of a short-term double-blind placebo controlled phase II clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY OBJECTIVE: Several studies suggest a protective role of green tea catechins against prostate cancer (PCa). In order to evaluate the efficacy of green tea catechins for chemoprevention of PCa in patients with high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-PIN) we performed a phase II clinical trial. METHODS: Sixty volunteers with HG-PIN were enrolled to carry out a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial. Treated group took daily 600 mg of green tea catechins (Categ Plus®) for 1 year. Patients were screened at 6 and 12 months through prostatic biopsy and measurements of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). RESULTS: Despite the statistically significant reduction of PSA observed in subjects who received green tea catechins for 6 and 12 months, we did not find any statistical difference in PCa incidence between the experimental groups neither after 6 nor after 12 months. However, throughout the one-year follow- up we observed very limited adverse effects induced by green tea catechins and a not significant improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Although the small number of patients enrolled in our study and the relatively short duration of intervention, our findings seems to deny the efficacy of green tea catechins. However, results of our clinical study, mainly for its low statistical strength, suggest that the effectiveness of green tea catechins should be evaluated in both a larger cohort of men and longer trial.