Z-shaped running suture for outer layer renorrhaphy during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to describe a novel outer layer renorrhaphy strategy during robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. METHODS: This technique is presented in key steps. Renorrhaphy is performed with a double layer technique. The novel strategy of outer layer renorrhaphy is to approach the parenchymal margins in a zigzag-shaped manner with a 2-0 Vicryl running suture. Each pass begins immediately adjacent to the exit site. The needle is passed through the defect and the exiting suture is secured with a Hem-o-lok clip. At each exit site, the suture is secured with a Hem-o-lok clip. A second Hem-o-lok clip is placed at the loose ends, to tighten the suture in the clip locking mechanism. Patients submitted to robot-assisted partial nephrectomy at a single institution between January 2017 and January 2022 were included in the analysis. Descriptive statistics of baseline characteristics and surgical, pathological, and oncological outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-nine consecutive patients were recorded; 103 (64.8%) of them presented with a cT1a renal mass. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) total operative time was 146 (120-182) minutes. There was no conversion to open surgery, while 5 (3.1%) patients were converted to radical nephrectomy. We reported an overall low rate of postoperative complications. There were 5 documented perirenal hematomas and 6 cases of urinary leakage (2 pT2a, 2 pT1b, 2 pT1a renal cell carcinoma). CONCLUSIONS: Z-shaped technique is a feasible and safe alternative for renorrhaphy of the outer layer, in experienced hands. Future comparative studies are needed to confirm our results.

Multicentric experience in Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed by expert surgeons for high-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The study aim was to report the results of Retzius-Sparing robot-assisted radical Prostatectomy (RSP) in high-risk prostate cancer (HR-PCa) patients in a multicentric setting of expert surgeons and to analyze predictors of positive surgical margins (PSMs) and urinary continence recovery. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive HR-PCa patients who underwent RSP by expert surgeons in 7 centers. Pre-, peri- and postoperative features were collected. Minimum surgical experience required was 100 RSP cases. The oncological outcomes evaluated were PSMs and biochemical relapse (BCR). Urinary continence was defined as no pad or safety pad. Erectile function was defined as erections sufficient for intercourse. RESULTS: We collected 579 patients operated by 9 surgeons. Median age was 66, median PSA was 9,6 ng/mL. ISUP biopsy was 1 in 3.8%, 2 in 23%, 3 in 32,6%, 4 in 19,9%, 5 in 20,7; median surgical time was 195 minutes. Pathological stage was pT2 in 40,1%, pT3a in 35,9%, pT3b in 23,1%, and pT4 in 0,9% of cases. PSMs were present in 31,3% of cases. Urinary continence was achieved in 66,8% of cases one week after catheter removal. At 22 months (median follow-up), 89,1% patients were continent, BCR occurred in 27,5% patients. In multivariate analysis, PSA, prostate volume, surgical time were independent predictors of PSMs; ASA score and PSMs predicted urinary continence. CONCLUSIONS: We report the first multicentric experience of RSP for HR-PCa. Considering HR cases as those with the worst functional results, 89% of continent patients confirms that RSP helps achieve good functional results.

Uro-oncologic patient management during the COVID-19 pandemic: survey findings from an Italian oncologic hub.

Aim: Patient and worker satisfaction at an oncologic hub during the COVID-19 pandemic has never been reported. We addressed this topic. Methods: We conducted a survey to test the views of patients (n = 64) and healthcare professionals (n = 52) involved with our operative protocol. Results: A moderate/severe grade of concern due to the COVID-19 emergency was recorded in 63% of patients versus 75% of hospital staff. High/very high versus low satisfaction grade about preventive strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion was identified in the patients compared with the hospital staff group. Conclusion: Surgical treatment at a hub center of uro-oncologic patients coming from spoke centers is well accepted and should, therefore, be recommended. Preventive strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in hospital staff members should be implemented.

Lay abstract We provide robust evidence that an oncologic hub center during COVID-19 pandemic represents a credible solution for management of non-deferrable uro-oncologic patients. Specifically, surgical treatment at a hub center of patients coming from spoke centers is well accepted by both patients and hospital staff members. Moreover, collaboration between healthcare workers from spoke and hub centers generates minimal levels of anxiety, while potentially being associated with clinical, surgical and scientific improvement. This said, a more specific focus on recommended strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion at oncologic hub hospitals is warranted.

Comparative Outcomes of Salvage Retzius-Sparing versus Standard Robotic Prostatectomy: An International, Multi-Surgeon Series.

PURPOSE: Salvage radical prostatectomy is rare due to the risk of postoperative complications. We compare salvage Retzius-sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (SRS-RARP) with salvage standard robotic assisted radical prostatectomy (SS-RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 72 patients across 9 centers were identified (40 SRS-RARP vs 32 SS-RARP). Demographics, perioperative data, and pathological and functional outcomes were compared using Student's t-test and ANOVA. Cox proportional hazard models and Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to assess risk of incontinence and time to continence. Linear regression models were constructed to investigate postoperative pad use and console time. RESULTS: Median followup was 23 vs 36 months for SRS-RARP vs SS-RARP. Console time and estimated blood loss favored SRS-RARP. There were no differences in complication rates or oncologic outcomes. SRS-RARP had improved continence (78.4% vs 43.8%, p <0.001 for 0-1 pad, 54.1% vs 6.3%, p <0.001 for 0 pad), lower pads per day (0.57 vs 2.03, p <0.001), and earlier return to continence (median 47 vs 180 days, p=0.008). SRS-RARP was associated with decreased incontinence defined as >0-1 pad (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10-0.79, p=0.016), although not when defined as >0 pad (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-1.01, p=0.053). On adjusted analysis SRS-RARP was associated with decreased pads per day. Lymph node dissection and primary treatment with stereotactic body radiation therapy were associated with longer console time. CONCLUSIONS: SRS-RARP is a feasible salvage option with significantly improved urinary function outcomes. This may warrant increased utilization of SRS-RARP to manage men who fail nonsurgical primary treatment for prostate cancer.

Pain and discomfort after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a comparative study between suprapubic cystostomy and urethral catheter as urinary drainage.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate differences in discomfort, complications and functional results after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) according to different urinary drainage: suprapubic tube (SPT) and standard urethral catheter (UC). METHODS: Prospective, comparative, consecutive, non-randomized study. In all patients with a water-tight anastomosis, no hematuria, obesity, previous suprapubic surgery or history of bladder cancer, a SPT (two-way Foley 14-Fr catheter) was positioned instead of a Foley 18-Fr UC. One week after surgery, an institutional self-compiled questionnaire was administered. The patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of UC or SPT and were compared concerning pain, perioperative results, complications, functional outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients with UC and 135 with SPT agreed to participate to the study. Median postoperative pain score was 3 (IQR: 2-5) in UC and 3 (IQR: 1-5) in SPT group (P=0.324); urinary drain-related pain scores were 3 (IQR: 1-5) in UC and 1 (IQR: 0-3) in SPT groups (P<0.001); catheter removal related scores were 1 (IQR: 0-3) and 1 (IQR: 1-3) (P=0.317), respectively. Lastly, 17.8% (UC) and 31.1% (SPT) wore a protection (small or medium pad) while the urinary drainage was in place (P=0.061). No differences related to complications were found (P=0.085); 7.9% of patients in UC group and 4.2% in SPT group (P=0.178) used pads one year after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated suprapubic tube to be more comfortable than transurethral catheter after RARP, with a possible advantage concerning anastomotic postoperative problems.

Does prostate volume have an impact on the functional and oncological results of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy?

BACKGROUND: The objective of our study is to evaluate the effect of prostatic volume on the outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RSP). METHODS: All the consecutive patients undergoing RSP up to January 2015 were included. The series was divided into three groups based on prostate weight at radical prostatectomy specimen (<40 g, 40-60 g, >60 g). Perioperative, oncological and functional data were prospectively recorded. Potency was defined as erections sufficient for penetration; continence as no pad or one safety liner. Oncological results were reported as positive surgical margins (PSMs) and 1-year biochemical disease-free survival (PSA<0.2 ng/mL). RESULTS: We evaluated 750 patients (366 with <40 g prostates, 272 with 40-60 g prostates, 112 with >60 g prostates). Median follow-up was 22 months; PSA was higher in larger prostates (6.6 vs. 6.8 vs. 8 ng/mL). Nerve-sparing and bladder-neck sparing procedures were in similar percentages. Larger prostates required longer surgeries (90 vs. 100 vs. 100 minutes, P=0.002). Perioperative results were similar (blood loss, discharge, complications, catheter removal). Larger prostates had more frequently localized disease (pT2 in 49.5% vs. 60.7% vs. 68.5%; P=0.001); PSMs were similar both in pT2 (15.5% vs. 9.4% vs. 11.8%) and in pT3 cases (40.1% vs. 42% vs. 34%). In the three study groups, immediate continence was reached by 88%, 89.5% and 81.3% (P=0.045), while no differences were observed concerning continence (93.4%, 94.1%, 94.7%; P=0.892) or potency after follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: RSP is feasible in patients with prostates of any volume, with similar oncological and functional outcomes. Despite being inferior to the figures obtained in low volume prostates, the very high immediate continence rates observed in larger prostates encourage the use of this approach also in larger prostates.

General versus spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: results of a prospective, randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of general anesthesia (GA) versus spinal anesthesia (SpA) on intraoperative and postoperative outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. METHODS: Seventy-two consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomized into group 1 (GA: 34 patients) or group 2 (L2-L3 or L3-L4 SpA: 38 patients) and underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. The intraoperative and postoperative anesthetic and surgical variables were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean +/- SEM operative time was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.43). The overall blood loss was less in group 2 (P = 0.04). The mean +/- SEM postoperative time in the postoperative holding area was significantly shorter after SpA than after GA (P <0.0001). The perioperative pain outcome in the postoperative holding area was significantly better for group 2 than for group 1 (P = 0.0017), but postoperative pain on day 1 was not significantly different between the two groups. The postoperative sedation score was significantly less in group 2 than in group 1 (P <0.0001). On day 1, first flatus passed in a significantly larger number of patients in group 2 (P <0.0001), and the overall gait was greater for group 2 patients (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that SpA allows good muscle relaxation and a successful surgical outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Moreover, SpA results in less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, and a faster postoperative recovery than GA.