Inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement—Are we ready for a paradigm change? / Colocación de reservorio para prótesis de pene inflables: ¿estamos preparados para un cambio de paradigma?

In 2002, Steve Wilson pioneered new procedures for alternative placement of reservoirs for inflatable prostheses in patients who have suffered damage to the space of Retzius following pelvic surgery or obliteration of the transversalis fascia by mesh hernia repair. Since then, surgical techniques and tools for ectopic reservoir placement have gradually gained acceptance to minimize palpability, and the risk of visceral and vascular lesions for high risk patients has been all but eliminated. Lockout valves and high submuscular placement techniques are now recommended, and reports of vascular, bowel or bladder injuries are uncommonly rare. While surgeons continue their search for safer and more effective placement methods, new skills and instruments are constantly being introduced to make recommendations to minimize complications and provide safety and functionality. Additional studies and comparisons of techniques are needed to achieve a consensus of best practice for reservoir placement solutions. (AU)

En 2002, Steve Wilson fue el precursor de nuevos procedimientos para la colocación alternativa de reservorios para prótesis inflables en los pacientes que habían sufrido daños en el espacio de Retzius tras cirugía pélvica u obliteración de la fascia transversalis por reparación de hernia con malla. Desde entonces, han ido ganando aceptación las técnicas y herramientas quirúrgicas para colocación de reservorio ectópico, a fin de minimizar la palpabilidad, habiéndose eliminado prácticamente el riesgo de lesiones viscerales y vasculares para pacientes de alto riesgo. Hoy en día se recomiendan las válvulas de bloqueo y las técnicas de colocación submuscular alta, siendo excepcionalmente raros los informes sobre lesiones a nivel vascular, intestinal o en la vejiga. A pesar de que los cirujanos siguen investigando en busca de métodos de colocación más seguros y efectivos, se están introduciendo constantemente nuevas competencias e instrumentos en aras de realizar recomendaciones para minimizar las complicaciones y aportar seguridad y funcionalidad. Son necesarios más estudios y comparaciones sobre técnicas para lograr un consenso acerca de la mejor práctica sobre soluciones de colocación de reservorios. (AU)

Comparación entre la prostatectomía con preservación del espacio de Retzius y la prostatectomía radical estándar asistida por robot para el cáncer de próstata / Comparison of Retzius-Sparing versus Standard Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer

Introducción y objetivos Nuestro objetivo fue comparar los resultados oncológicos y funcionales del primer año tras la prostatectomía radical asistida por robot con preservación del espacio de Retzius (PRAR-PR) y la prostatectomía radical estándar asistida por robot (PRAR). Materiales y métodos Se incluyeron 88 pacientes sometidos a prostatectomía radical robótica entre 2018-2019. Se compararon los resultados oncológicos y funcionales de los pacientes que recibieron PRAR-PR o PRAR durante un periodo mínimo de seguimiento de un año. La potencia se evaluó con la puntuación del cuestionario de salud sexual del varón (Sexual Health Inventory for Men) y se definió como una erección con rigidez suficiente para la penetración. La continencia se definió como la ausencia de incontinencia urinaria sin compresa de seguridad. Los pacientes fueron evaluados en el primer mes y trimestralmente durante el resto del seguimiento. Resultados Se incluyeron 46 pacientes en el grupo PRAR-PR y 42 en el grupo PRAR. El tiempo de retirada del catéter fue menor en el grupo PRAR-PR (12 vs. 14 días, p=0,001). En la consulta del primer mes 41 pacientes (89%) eran continentes (no utilizaban compresas) en el grupo PRAR-PR, mientras que 25 pacientes (59%) eran continentes en el grupo PRAR (p=0,001). Los pacientes sometidos a PRAR-PR lograron una recuperación más rápida de la continencia urinaria (Log-rank, p=0,001). Tras un año de seguimiento 43 pacientes (93%) del grupo PRAR-PR y 38 (90%) del grupo PRAR eran continentes (p=0,6). Las tasas de potencia fueron del 38,7% en el grupo PRAR-PR y del 34,4% en el grupo PRAR (p=0,28). No se observaron recurrencias bioquímicas en ningún grupo. Conclusiones La PRAR-PR es una técnica factible, que proporciona un retorno temprano de la continencia. Sin embargo, las tasas globales de continencia fueron similares al final del periodo de un año de seguimiento (AU)

Introduction and objectives We aim to compare the first year oncological and functional outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (Rs-RARP) and standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Materials and methods Eighty-eight patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy between 2018-2019 were included. We compared the minimum one-year follow-up results of patients who underwent Rs-RARP or RARP in terms of oncological and functional outcomes. Potency was assessed with the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score and was defined as an erection sufficient for penetration. Continence was defined as the absence of urinary incontinence with no safety pad. Patients were evaluated in the first month of follow-up and subsequently, every three months. Results Forty-six patients in Rs-RARP and 42 patients in the RARP group were enrolled. Catheter removal time was shorter in the Rs-RARP group (12 vs. 14 days, P=.001). At the 1st month visit, 41 patients (%89) were continent (no pads) in the Rs-RARP group while 25 patients (%59) were continent in the RARP group (P=.001). Patients who underwent Rs-RARP achieved faster recovery of urinary continence (Log-rank, P=.001). After one year of follow-up, 43 patients (93%) in Rs-RARP group and 38 patients (90%) in RARP group were continent (P=.6). Potency rates were 38.7% in Rs-RARP and 34.4% in RARP group (P=.28). There were no cases of biochemical recurrence in any group. Conclusions Rs-RARP is a feasible technique, providing early return of continence. However, overall continence rates were similar at the end of the one-year follow-up (AU)

Inflatable penile prosthesis reservoir placement-Are we ready for a paradigm change?

In 2002, Steve Wilson pioneered new procedures for alternative placement of reservoirs for inflatable prostheses in patients who have suffered damage to the space of Retzius following pelvic surgery or obliteration of the transversalis fascia by mesh hernia repair. Since then, surgical techniques and tools for ectopic reservoir placement have gradually gained acceptance to minimize palpability, and the risk of visceral and vascular lesions for high risk patients has been all but eliminated. Lockout valves and high submuscular placement techniques are now recommended, and reports of vascular, bowel or bladder injuries are uncommonly rare. While surgeons continue their search for safer and more effective placement methods, new skills and instruments are constantly being introduced to make recommendations to minimize complications and provide safety and functionality. Additional studies and comparisons of techniques are needed to achieve a consensus of best practice for reservoir placement solutions.

Comparison of Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: We aim to compare the first year oncological and functional outcomes of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (Rs-RARP) and standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy between 2018-2019 were included. We compared the minimum one-year follow-up results of patients who underwent Rs-RARP or RARP in terms of oncological and functional outcomes. Potency was assessed with the Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) score and was defined as an erection sufficient for penetration. Continence was defined as the absence of urinary incontinence with no safety pad. Patients were evaluated in the first month of follow-up and subsequently, every three months. RESULTS: Forty-six patients in Rs-RARP and 42 patients in the RARP group were enrolled. Catheter removal time was shorter in the Rs-RARP group (12 vs. 14 days, p = 0.001). At the 1st month visit, 41 patients (%89) were continent (no pads) in the Rs-RARP group while 25 patients (%59) were continent in the RARP group (p = 0.001). Patients who underwent Rs-RARP achieved faster recovery of urinary continence (Log-rank, p = 0.001). After one year of follow-up, 43 patients (93%) in Rs-RARP group and 38 patients (90%) in RARP group were continent (p = 0.6). Potency rates were 38.7% in Rs-RARP and 34.4% in RARP group (p = 0.28). There were no cases of biochemical recurrence in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Rs-RARP is a feasible technique, providing early return of continence. However, overall continence rates were similar at the end of the one-year follow-up.

Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Perioperative and immediate continence outcomes of an initial series. / Prostatectomía radical robot-asistida con preservación del espacio de Retzius: resultados perioperatorios y de continencia inmediata en una serie inicial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to present initial perioperative, immediate continence and oncological results in a series of 25 prostate cancer patients treated with Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a series of 25 patients treated with Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for cT1-T2b prostate cancer between 2018-2019. The 5 stages of surgery are described. We make a descriptive statistic of our initial series and its outcomes in terms of immediate continence, defined as the use of 0 pad/diapers or 1 safety pad/diaper every 24 hours, one week after catheter removal. RESULTS: Median follow-up, 6 months (3-18). Median PSA, 6.1 ng/ml (4-14.3). All surgeries were performed through a posterior intrafascial approach, and bilateral nerve-sparing was carried out in 84% of the cases. Affected surgical margins were present in 28%, being the apex the most frequent site of affectation. Surgical complications: 1 (4%) patient required transfusion of blood products in the immediate postoperative period. Mean hospital stay was 48 hours. Functional outcomes: 80% of the patients present immediate continence. 80% of continent patients do not require the use of any safety pads/diapers. Oncological outcomes: 84% are free of biochemical-progression in a median follow-up of 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Initial functional results in terms of immediate continence are very satisfactory in patients who have undergone Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy without negative impact on prognosis.