Search

PURPOSE: To describe the surgical technique and examine the feasibility and outcomes following robotic pelvic exenteration and extended pelvic resection for rectal and/or urological malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a case series of seven patients with locally advanced or synchronous urological and/or rectal malignancy who underwent robotic total or posterior pelvic exenteration between 2012-2016. RESULTS: In total, we included seven patients undergoing pelvic exenteration or extended pelvic resection. The mean operative time was 485±157 minutes and median length of stay was 9 days (6-34 days). There was only one Clavien-Dindo complication grade 3 which was a vesicourethral anastomotic leak requiring rigid cystoscopy and bilateral ureteric catheter insertion. Eighty-five percent of patients had clear colorectal margins with a median margin of 3.5 mm (0.7-8.0 mm) while all urological margins were clear. Six out of seven patients had complete (grade 3) total mesorectal excision. Three patients experienced recurrence at a median of 22 months (21-24 months) post-operatively. Of the three recurrences, one was systemic only whilst two were both local and systemic. One patient died from complications of dual rectal and prostate cancer 31 months after the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We report a large series examining robotic pelvic exenteration or extended pelvic resection and describe the surgical technique involved. The robotic approach to pelvic exenteration is highly feasible and demonstrates acceptable peri-operative and oncological outcomes. It has the potential to benefit patients undergoing this highly complex and morbid procedure.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical utility of systematic Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) after robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (PN) for the detection of renal artery pseudoaneurysm (PA) and to allow pre-emptive arterial embolization to reduce the postoperative bleeding risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including all consecutive patients treated with robot-assisted PN for renal tumours between 2015 and 2017. Every patient underwent renal DUS in the early postoperative period. The presence of PA, arteriovenous malformation or collection on the DUS, as well as the incidence of haemorrhagic complications and need for transfusion/embolization were assessed. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were included, with a median (range) age of 58 (19-80) years. The median (range) follow-up was 5 (1-30) months. The mean (±sd) tumour size was 31 (±13.1) mm, the median (range) RENAL nephrometry score was 6 (4-11), and the mean (±sd) warm ischaemia time was 22 (±7) min. A haemostatic agent was used in 12 patients (14.5%). No patient encountered haemorrhagic complications postoperatively, and no patient required transfusion. The median (interquartile range) time to DUS postoperatively was 7 (6-8) days. DUS revealed one asymptomatic PA (1.2%), which was treated with pre-emptive embolization. This was the only patient who encountered a Clavien grade III complication, while 20 patients (24%) had a complication grade I/II. CONCLUSIONS: No haemorrhagic complications occurred in the present study population, although one asymptomatic PA was found. It was diagnosed early with DUS, allowing pre-emptive management with embolization. These results suggest the potential clinical utility of early postoperative DUS in order to screen for PA to reduce the risk of post-PN haemorrhagic complications.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common male cancer in the Western world however there is ongoing debate about the optimal treatment strategy for localised disease. While surgery remains the most commonly received treatment for localised disease in Australia more recently a robotic approach has emerged as an alternative to open and laparoscopic surgery. However, high level data is not yet available to support this as a superior approach or to guide treatment decision making between the alternatives. This paper presents the design of a randomised trial of Robotic and Open Prostatectomy for men newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer that seeks to answer this question. METHODS/DESIGN: 200 men per treatment arm (400 men in total) are being recruited after diagnosis and before treatment through a major public hospital outpatient clinic and randomised to 1) Robotic Prostatectomy or 2) Open Prostatectomy. All robotic prostatectomies are being performed by one surgeon and all open prostatectomies are being performed by one other surgeon. Outcomes are being measured pre-operatively and at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 12 and 24 months post-surgery. Oncological outcomes are being related to positive surgical margins, biochemical recurrence +/- the need for further treatment. Non-oncological outcome measures include: pain, physical and mental functioning, fatigue, summary (preference-based utility scores) and domain-specific QoL (urinary incontinence, bowel function and erectile function), cancer specific distress, psychological distress, decision-related distress and time to return to usual activities. Cost modelling of each approach, as well as full economic appraisal, is also being undertaken. DISCUSSION: The study will provide recommendations about the relative benefits of Robotic and Open Prostatectomy to support informed patient decision making about treatment for localised prostate cancer; and to assist in treatment services planning for this patient group. TRIAL REG