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

ABSTRACT 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.

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.

Implementing the da Vinci SP Without Increasing Positive Surgical Margins: Experience and Pathologic Outcomes of a Prostate Cancer Referral Center.

Background: Different consoles have been described for the da Vinci single-port (SP) surgery since it was cleared by the FDA in November 2018. However, the literature still lacks studies identifying factors related to the SP learning curve and how to overcome the technological limitations, especially in terms of maintaining acceptable positive surgical margins (PSMs). This study describes our perioperative experience implementing a safe SP approach to radical prostatectomy (RP) while minimizing PSM, especially during the initial learning period. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent RP with the SP robot from June 2019 to December 2020 (IRB 237998). We accessed the perioperative data, pathology report, and short-term oncologic outcomes. We also represented our PSM trends in 100 consecutive cases, discussing potential factors for minimizing the learning curve impact on positive margins and outcomes. Medians and interquartile ranges, as well as frequencies and proportions, were reported for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results and Limitations: The median follow-up is 14 months (8-17). The cohort has a median age of 62 years (56-68), median prostate-specific antigen of 5.5 (4.3-7.7), median preoperative Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) of 20, median American Urological Association (AUA) of 7 (3-11), and median body mass index of 25.4 (23.4-27.4). The median total operative time was 114 minutes (104-124), the median console time was 80 minutes (75-90). No intraoperative complications were reported. The overall rate of PSMs was 15% (5% were pT2 and 10% were pT3). Conclusions: The SP approach to RP is feasible, safe, and with acceptable intraoperative performance. In this study, we have described crucial factors for considering selection criteria in candidates for SP-robot-assisted RP. We believe that with an appropriate patient selection, this robot can be safely implemented without increasing positive margins and compromising the outcomes, especially during the learning curve period.