Orthotopic Robot-assisted Kidney Transplantation: Surgical Technique and Preliminary Results.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Orthotopic kidney transplantation (KT) has been proposed as an option for patients ineligible for heterotopic KT. In this scenario, orthotopic robot-assisted KT (oRAKT) represents a novel, minimally invasive alternative to the open approach. Here we describe the largest oRAKT series of patients, with a focus on the surgical technique, perioperative surgical outcomes, and functional results. METHODS: We queried prospectively maintained databases from three referral centers to identify patients who underwent oRAKT and evaluated surgical and functional outcomes. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Overall, 16 oRAKT procedures were performed between January 2020 and August 2023. These involved four donors after cardiovascular death, five donors after brain death, and seven living donors. All oRAKT procedures were carried out in the left renal fossa. The indication for oRAKT was extensive calcification of the external iliac vessels (100%), frequently associated with prior KT (31%). The median operative time was 295 min (interquartile range [IQR] 268-360) and the median rewarming time 48 min (IQR 40-54). Conversion to open surgery occurred in two cases (12%), and delayed graft function was observed in two cases (12%). Postoperative complications occurred in 11 patients (69%) and three (18%) experienced Clavien-Dindo grade >II complications. At median follow-up of 9 mo (IQR 7-17), 14 patients had a functioning graft and median creatinine of 1.49 mg/dl (IQR 1.36-1.72). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Although oRAKT is a challenging procedure, it represents a feasible option for individuals ineligible for heterotopic KT and yields favorable perioperative and mid-term functional outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: We evaluated outcomes of orthotopic robot-assisted kidney transplantation (KT), in which the native kidney is removed and the donor kidney is transplanted into its place, in patients who are not eligible for heterotopic KT, in which the native kidney is left in place and the donor kidney is transplanted into a new location. We found that robot-assisted surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to traditional open surgery for orthotopic KT.

Prostate sparing cystectomy for bladder cancer: A two-center study.

PURPOSE: To assess long-term functional and oncologic outcomes of prostate sparing cystectomy (PSC) as a sexuality-preserving alternative to radical cystectomy in a selected group of bladder cancer (BC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1995 and 2014, 185 BC patients underwent PSC according to one of two standardized procedures at two centers. All patients had received extensive evaluation to rule out prostate cancer and BC at the bladder neck and prostatic urethra (PU), including prostate specific antigen blood analysis, transrectal ultrasound and/or prostate biopsies, PU biopsies and/or PU frozen section analysis. All patients received an orthotopic ileal neobladder. Overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier estimates. Cumulative incidence of cancer specific mortality, any recurrence and loco-regional recurrence were calculated using competing-risk methods. Finally, functional outcomes (voiding, continence and erectile function) were evaluated. RESULTS: 185 patients (cTa-3N0M0) with a mean age of 57 years (SD: 9) were included. Median follow-up was 7.5 years (IQR: 5.6-10.8). Five-year OS was 71% and 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was 31%. Twenty patients (10.8%) had a loco-regional recurrence, two recurrences were in the PU. During follow-up, prostate cancer was detected in six patients (3.2%). Erectile function was preserved in 86.1% of patients, complete daytime and nighttime continence in 95.6% and 70.2%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This two-center study shows that in men with BC in whom the prostate and PU were proven free of malignancy, PSC would represent a valid treatment option with excellent functional outcome. Oncologic outcomes were comparable to what is known from radical cystoprostatectomy series.

Tratamiento Focal del cáncer de próstata localizado: Modelo "À la carte” / Localized prostate cancer Focal Therapy: "A la carte" Model

La terapia focal se ha instaurado como una alternativa al tratamiento radical en casos seleccionados de cáncer de próstata localizado. La selección de pacientes candidatos a terapia focal se basa en un diagnóstico por imagen apoyado en la resonancia magnética multiparamétrica y las técnicas de fusión de imagen. Debido a los resultados oncológicos y los perfiles de seguridad de series iniciales, se han desarrollado distintas fuentes de energía en los últimos años. La disponibilidad de múltiples tipos de energía para el tratamiento focal, nos compromete a evaluar qué tipo de energía será la óptima según el perfil de paciente y el tipo de lesión. Una energía única para el tratamiento focal sería el ideal, pero ante la investigación de los diversos tipos de energías debemos identificar cuál es la recomendada para cada lesión. Con la experiencia de nuestro centro en distintos abordajes de terapia focal, proponemos el MODELO "À LA CARTE" basado en la localización de la lesión. Presentamos los criterios en los que se basa el modelo "à la carte", apoyados por la evidencia publicada en el uso de distintos tratamientos ablativos para el tratamiento de cáncer de próstata localizado. Tanto la localización de la lesión, las características técnicas de cada tipo de energía, el perfil del paciente y los efectos secundarios, han de contemplarse en toda elección de tratamiento focal

Focal therapy has settled as an alternative to radical treatment in selected cases of localized prostate cancer. The selection of patients who are candidates for focal therapy is based on imaging diagnosis relying on multiparametric MRI and image fusion techniques. Thanks to the oncological results and safety profiles of initial series, various energy sources have been developed over the last years. The availability of multiple types of energy sources for focal therapy, commits us to evaluate what type of energy would be the optimal depending on patient's profile and type of lesion. A unique energy for focal therapy would be ideal, but facing the research of the various types of energy we must identify which one is recommended for each lesion. With the experience of our center in different approaches of focal therapy we propose the "A LA CARTE" MODEL based on localization of the lesion. We present the criteria the "a la carte" model is based on, supported by the published evidence on the use of different ablative therapies for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Lesion localization, technical characteristics of each type of energy, patient's profile and secondary effects must be considered in every choice of focal therapy

Minimally Invasive Salvage Prostatectomy After Primary Radiation or Ablation Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze oncologic, functional and morbidity outcomes for patients undergoing minimally invasive salvage prostatectomy (MISP) at our institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2001 and 2015, 5841 patients underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution, out of which 28 were MISP. Indications for MISP were prostate-specific antigen nadir +2 ng/dL in radio-recurrent patients and biopsy-proven prostate cancer (PCa) in other ablative treatments. We analyzed primary cancer characteristics, surgical data, perioperative complications, oncologic and functional outcomes of MISP, and further compared results between MISP after primary whole-gland treatment (WT) and focal treatment (FT). RESULTS: Median age at salvage treatment was 65 (interquartile range [IQR] 61-68). Compared with WT, MISP after FT had significantly lower operative time (133 vs 176 min, P = .001) and fewer upstaging (≥pT3a) (28% vs 79%, P = .008) at final pathology. Overall, positive surgical margin (PSM) were noted in 4 patients (14%). Perioperative complications were observed in 9 patients with no difference between groups. At 12-months follow-up, 57% were continent and 33% had moderate to severe urinary leak. Potency was preserved in 6 out of 10 preoperatively potent patients. Over a median follow-up of 62 months (IQR 43-110), 11 patients relapsed with a median time to biochemical recurrence of 16 months (IQR 7-25). Recurrences were managed with salvage radiotherapy in 6 patients, 4 with hormone therapy and 1 castration-resistant prostate cancer. Overall, 24 patients are alive at last follow-up and 18 (72%) remain disease free. CONCLUSION: MISP after primary radiation or ablation for prostate cancer is feasible and safe with acceptable oncological outcomes. Compared with FT, MISP after WT appears to have longer operative time and more frequent upstaging.