Search

Purpose: Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a recently described surgical approach, but comparison with open simple prostatectomy (OSP) lack in the literature. We compared perioperative outcomes of OSP versus RASP. Methods: Patients who underwent simple prostatectomy between 2017 and 2020 were included in this retrospective study. OSP was performed by the transvesical technique and RASP was performed with a DaVinci Xi robot, using the transvesical extraperitoneal approach. Perioperative and postoperative data were compared and complications risk factors for complications were identified. Results: and limitations. Overall, 103 patients were included (median age 72 years [IQR = 67–76]). Forty-seven underwent RASP and 56 OSP. The median volume of the prostate gland was 130 mL [IQR = 100–180] in the RASP group and 126 mL [IQR = 100–160] in the OSP group. RASP was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss (median 200 vs. 400 mL; p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (5 vs. 10 days; p < 0.001) and median catheterisation time (4 vs. 9 days; p < 0.001). In the RASP group, there were fewer grade ≥ 2 complications (2 (4.3%) vs. 13 (23.2%); p = 0.005) and less need for transfusions (0 vs. 6 (11%), p = 0.005). Preoperative prostate volume was a risk factor for complications (OR = 1.2 [95% CI 1.1–1.5]; p = 0.01) while robot-assisted surgery was a protective factor (OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.05–0.9]; p = 0.05). Functional outcomes between the two groups were identical at 12 months follow up. Conclusion: RASP is a safe and effective procedure. When compared with OSP, RASP was associated with decreased morbidity as well as reduced hospital stay and catheterisation time. Functional outcomes were comparable to the open approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For large prostate volume, open simple prostatectomy (OSP) or holmium laser enucleation are the gold standard surgical treatment medical therapy failure. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) has recently been proposed as an alternative to OSP and endoscopic techniques. Our objective was to describe our extraperitoneal RASP technique for patients with benign prostate obstruction (BPO), and to report on perioperative and mid-term functional outcomes. Data were collected prospectively for all consecutive patients who underwent RASP in our high-volume tertiary hospital over a 6-year period. International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) and uroflow findings were compared before and after surgery. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were also assessed. Forty-seven patients were included in the study. There was no intraoperative incident and no blood transfusion was needed after surgery. Median time to bladder catheter removal was 4 days and patients were discharged the day after. Within 90 postoperative days, 6 patients (12%) experienced at least one complication, all low-grade except one (2.1%) which was Clavien IIIa grade. By univariate analysis, the only risk factor for postoperative complications was the Charlson comorbidity index (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = [1.1–4.7], p = 0.04). At 12 months, a significant improvement IPSS and uroflow rate was observed. No patient reported stress urinary incontinence. Extraperitoneal RASP appears to be a safe and effective technique for men with LUTS related to large BPO. RASP is less invasive than OSP and wide diffusion of the robot-system could lead to the rapid implementation of RASP as a treatment for large prostate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Urinary incontinence (UI) is one of the most bothersome surgical side effects after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Alteration of both smooth and striate urethral sphincter occurs after RARP. Since the contraction of perineal muscles is involved in the complex mechanism of urinary continence, the uroflow stop test (UST) seems to predict early continence recovery after RARP. The UST was added of perineal surface electromyography (EMG) evaluation to evaluate the latency time (LT) between muscular contraction and the complete stop of urine flow. Our aim was to present UST–EMG as a new tool in the investigation of UI, implying pelvic floor integrity, and to evaluate whether an early return (≤ 3 months) to preoperative LT could be associated with early recovery of UC (≤ 3 months). Methods: After prospectively enrolling 137 patients who underwent RARP with a minimum follow-up of 6 months, we identified two groups: Group 1 (93 patients) with early (≤ 3 months) pre-surgical LT recovery and Group 2 (44 patients) with late > 3 months or not able to reach pre-surgical LT recovery. Results: Between the two groups, there were significant differences in terms of different surgical technique (nerve-sparing versus non-nerve-sparing) and pads use at 3 and 6 months after RARP (p < 0.05). No differences were recorded neither in postoperative maximum flow-rate, nor in postoperative symptoms score. Conclusions: UST with EMG can be considered as a noninvasive, reproducible and easily performable tool. LT is applicable in the clinical evaluation to predict urinary continence recovery after RARP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]