RESUMEN
Background: Radical prostatectomy (RP) represents the standard of care for the treatment of patients with organ-confined prostatic cancer. Historically, perineal RP has been described as the first surgical approach for the complete removal of the prostatic gland. In the past years, robotic techniques provided some technical advantages that allow resuming alternative approaches, such as robotic radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP). Objective: To present in detail the technique of Xi nerve-sparing r-RPP and to report perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes from a European tertiary center. Design setting and participants: Patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostatic cancer not suitable for active surveillance and prostate volume up to 60 ml who underwent r-RPP between November 2018 and December 2020 were identified. Surgical procedure: All patients underwent Xi nerve-sparing r-RPP. Measurements: Baseline characteristics and intraoperative, pathological, and postoperative data were collected and analyzed. The complications were reported according to the standardized methodology to report complications proposed by European Association of Urology guidelines. Results and limitations: Overall, our series included 26 patients who underwent r-RPP. Patients' median age was 62.5 yr. Thirteen (50%) and eight (30.7%) patients showed a body mass index (BMI) of 25-30 and >30, respectively. A history of past surgical procedures was present in seven (26.8%) patients. The median prostate volume was 40 (interquartile range [IQR]: 28-52) ml. The median operative time and blood lost were 246 (IQR: 230-268) min and 275 (IQR: 200-400) ml, respectively. Overall, four (15.4%) patients reported intraoperative complications and five (19.2%) reported postoperative complications, with one (3.8%) reporting major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). No patient with biochemical recurrence (BCR) was reported at 1 yr of follow-up. Continence rates were 73.0%, 84.6%, and 92.3%, respectively, at 3, 6, and 12 mo after surgery. Erectile potency recovery rates were 57.1%, 66.6%, and 80.9% at 3, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up, respectively. Conclusions: Xi r-RPP is a challenging but safe minimally invasive approach for selected patients. No patient reported BCR at 12 mo. The choice of the surgical approach for RP is likely to be based on the patient's characteristics as well as the surgeon's preferences. Patient summary: Our study suggests that Xi radical perineal prostatectomy is a safe minimally invasive approach for patients with low- or intermediate-risk prostatic cancer, and complex abdominal surgical history or comorbidities.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the algorithm of treatment of benign prostatic obstruction (BPO), the shift from medical therapy to surgery is steep in terms of invasiveness. Recently, a lively interest has developed on alternative micro-invasive options. Transperineal interstitial laser ablation (TPLA) was recently proposed for BPO treatment. OBJECTIVE: This work aims to illustrate feasibility, efficacy and safety profile of TPLA in BPO treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We prospectively analyzed the results of TPLA performed between September 2018 and March 2019 for LUTS due to BPO, in men with prostate volume <100 ml. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: TPLA was performed in OR, under local anesthesia, using Soracte Lite-EchoLaserX4. Diode laser light is conveyed through 300 µm optical fibers introduced transperineally by 21 Ga needles and placed at a security distance from urethra and bladder neck. EchoLaser Smart Interface eases needle positioning and increases the safety. MEASUREMENTS: The primary endpoint was the variation of Qmax and IPSS at 1, 3 and 6 months. We also assessed the ejaculatory function and recorded complications. These outcomes were further investigated at 12 months by phone call. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: 21 men with prostate volume of 43.5 ± 8.5 ml underwent TPLA. All were discharged after 24 h, keeping the transurethral catheter for 8.7 ± 2.5d. At one month all patients but one discontinued medical therapy, showing significant advantage in Qmax (+3.4 ± 5.7 ml/s; p < 0.01) and IPSS (-5.6 ± 7.0; p < 0.01). Functional results were still progressing at 6 months, with Qmax (+4.7 ± 6.0 ml/s; p < 0.01) and IPSS improvement (-13.1 ± 4.7; p < 0.01). The ejaculatory function was preserved as the MSHQ-EjD increased (p < 0.05). The only complication was a prostatic abscess, treated with transperineal drainage and antibiotic. CONCLUSIONS: TPLA is a micro-invasive treatment for BPO showing good functional and safety outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: This work illustrates the results of TPLA to treat LUTS due to BPO, showing high efficacy, preservation of the ejaculation, and low complication rate.
