Extraperitoneal vs. transperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy—analysis of perioperative outcomes, a single surgeon’s experience

Comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy via modified extraperitoneal approach and transvesical approach

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of two different surgical approaches for treating localized prostate cancer: extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (Ep-RARP) and transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (Tv-RARP).

METHODS

This study collected and analyzed data from patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) within the same surgical team between October 2018 and March 2024. The cohort included two groups: the Ep-RARP group (37 cases) and the Tv-RARP group (29 cases). The primary outcomes analyzed were postoperative drainage time, length of hospital stay, surgical margin status, postoperative complications, urinary continence, and erectile function.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients were consistent (p > 0.05), making them comparable. The Ep-RARP group had a significantly shorter hospital stay (7 days [5.5-8] vs. 9 days [9-10], p < 0.001) and shorter drain retention time (7 days [6-8] vs. 8 days [7-10], p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, and surgical complications. The duration of catheterization was similar in both groups (7 days [7-8] vs. 7 days [7-8], p = 0.135), as well as the distribution of Gleason scores, pathological staging (T1, T2), and positive surgical margin rate (p > 0.05). No significant differences were found in immediate postoperative urinary control rates (Tv-RARP: 20 [68.97%] vs. Ep-RARP: 26 [70.27%], p = 0.909), 3-month urinary control rates (Tv-RARP: 27 [93.10%] vs. Ep-RARP: 35 [94.59%], p = 1.000), or 6-month urinary control rates (Tv-RARP: 29 [100%] vs. Ep-RARP: 37 [100.00%], p = 1.000). The biochemical recurrence rate at 6 months was also comparable (Ep-RARP: 1 [2.70%] vs. Tv-RARP: 1 [3.45%], p = 1.000). Postoperative erectile function recovery at 3 and 6 months was similar between the two groups (3 months: Ep-RARP: 14 [37.84%] vs. Tv-RARP: 12 [41.40%], p = 0.804; 6 months: Ep-RARP: 18 [48.64%] vs. Tv-RARP: 17 [58.62%], p = 0.464).

CONCLUSION

Both extraperitoneal and transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy are feasible approaches for localized prostate cancer, offering comparable oncologic control and functional outcomes. However, the extraperitoneal approach demonstrates advantages in terms of shorter surgery time, drain retention time, and hospital stay.

Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in Continuous Spinal Anesthesia: A New Approach to an Established Technique

Background and Objectives: To prove the feasibility of continuous spinal extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (cseRALP) in order to expand the pool of eligible patients. Materials and Methods: According to IDEAL guidelines, a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent cseRALP was enrolled. Pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were collected, with particular focus on safety and oncological outcomes. Results: A total of three patients underwent this technique, with no intra- or post-operative medical complications. Only a grade 1 Clavien-Dindo complication was reported, small urinary leakage treated with an indwelling catheter. Oncological and functional results at month 3 were satisfactory, with no recurrence and no stress incontinence. Conclusions: cseRALP seems to be feasible and safe; further trials are mandatory.

Extraperitoneal Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS System: Initial Experience at a High-Volume Robotic Centre

Background: The Hugo™ Robotic-Assisted Surgery (Hugo™ RAS) system represents a novel advancement in robotic surgical technology. Despite this, there remains a scarcity of data regarding extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (eRARP) using this system. Methods: We conducted a prospective study at Ospedale Regionale "F. Miulli" from June 2023 to January 2024, enrolling consecutive patients diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing eRARP ± lymph node dissection. All procedures employed a modular four-arm setup performed by two young surgeons with limited prior robotic surgery experience. This study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of eRARP using the Hugo™ RAS system, reporting comprehensive preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes in the largest reported cohort to date. Results: A total of 50 cases were analyzed, with a mean patient age of 65.76 (±5.57) years. The median operative time was 275 min (Q1-Q3 150-345), and the console time was 240 min (Q1-Q3 150-300). The docking time averaged 10 min (Q1-Q3 6-20). There were no intraoperative complications recorded. Two major complications occurred within the first 90 days. At the 3-month mark, 36 patients (72%) achieved undetectable PSA levels (<0.1 ng/mL). Social continence was achieved by 66% of patients, while 40% maintained erectile function. Conclusions: eRARP utilizing the Hugo™ RAS system demonstrated effectiveness and safety in our study cohort. However, more extensive studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods are necessary to thoroughly evaluate long-term outcomes.

Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Comparison Among Extraperitoneal Single-port and Transperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy-A Single-center Experience

Background and objective

The role of pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND) for prostate cancer is still controversial. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PLND between extraperitoneal single-port (SP eRARP) and transperitoneal multiport (MP tRARP) robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis from our single-center database for patients who underwent SP eRARP or MP tRARP with PLND between 2015 and 2023. The primary endpoint was to analyze and compare specific data related to PLND between the two populations by the detection of pN+ patients, the total number of lymph nodes removed, and the number of positive lymph nodes removed. The secondary endpoints included comparing major complications, lymphoceles, and biochemical recurrence between the two cohorts of the study.

Key findings and limitations

A total of 293 patients were included, with 85 (29%) undergoing SP eRARP and 208 (71%) undergoing MP tRARP. SP eRARP showed significant differences in PLND extension from MP tRARP, while MP tRARP yielded more lymph nodes (p < 0.001). There were no differences in pN+ patient detection (p = 0.7) or the number of positive lymph nodes retrieved (p = 0.6). The rates of major complications (p = 0.6), lymphoceles (p = 0.2), and biochemical recurrence (p = 0.9) were similar between the two groups. Additionally, SP eRARP had shorter operative time (p = 0.045), hospital stay (p < 0.001), and less postoperative pain at discharge (p = 0.03). Limitations include a retrospective, single-center analysis.

Conclusions and clinical implications

Despite the SP approach in RARP resulting in fewer retrieved lymph nodes, outcomes were comparable with the MP approach regarding the detection of patients with positive lymph nodes and the number of positive nodes. Additionally, the SP approach led to lower pain levels and shorter hospital stays.

Patient summary

With this study, we demonstrate that pelvic lymph node dissection performed via the extraperitoneal approach during robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with a single-port system provides comparable outcomes with the standard transperitoneal multiport approach in detecting patients with positive lymph nodes and retrieving positive nodes. In addition, it offers significantly reduced pain levels and shorter hospital stays.

Versatility of Single Port Retroperitoneal Low Anterior Access: Early Outcomes in Multiple Procedures

Purpose: This study aimed to assess early outcomes of the single port (SP) robotic low anterior access (LAA) for all upper urinary tract surgeries. In addition, it aimed to explore the impact of clinical factors, notably Body Mass Index (BMI), on post-operative outcomes and length of hospital stay. Materials and Methods: Overall, 76 consecutive patients underwent SP robotic surgery with LAA involving all upper urinary tract pathologies, with data collected prospectively. Baseline characteristics, intra- and post-operative outcomes, pain levels, and opioid use were analyzed. Statistical methods, including logistic regression and locally weighted scatterplot smoothing analysis, were used to assess same-day discharge (SDD) predictors and the association between BMI and SDD probability. According to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol, only data recorded in our electronic medical record system was included. Results: Ten different procedures were performed with LAA, with no need for conversion to open surgery and complication rates in line with the literature (30 days: 5%, 90 days: 6.6%). Notably, 77.6% of patients were discharged on the same day. A significant association was found between BMI and prolonged hospital stay, particularly in obese patients (BMI ≥30 kg/m2). Post-operative pain was generally low (median VAS: 4), with over 70% discharged without opioid prescriptions. Conclusions: The novel LAA is a versatile approach for various upper urinary tract surgeries, including in obese patients. While achieving satisfactory post-operative outcomes, increased BMI correlated with a reduced likelihood of SDD. Further studies, including larger cohorts and multicenter collaborations, are warranted to explore anesthesiologic management and validate these findings.

Comparison of incidence of acute kidney injury after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with that after open retropubic and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomies in patients with prostate cancer

Background

We retrospectively evaluated the postoperative renal function in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy to compare the incidences of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) among the patients who had undergone robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (exLRP).

Materials and methods

Patients with prostate cancer who had undergone radical prostatectomy at our institution between 2008 and 2014 were included. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy was performed using an intraperitoneal approach in a 25-degree Trendelenburg position, whereas other procedures were performed with the patient in the supine position. We evaluated the serum creatinine levels and estimated glomerular filtration rates immediately after surgery and on postoperative day 1. We evaluated the incidence of AKI after prostatectomy using the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines.

Results

A total of 150 consecutive patients were included, with each of the 3 groups (RARP, RRP, and exLRP) comprising 50 patients. Postoperative AKI was observed in 15 (30.0%), 1 (2.0%), and 3 (6.0%) patients in the RARP, RRP, and exLRP groups, respectively. Stage 1 AKI was observed in all the patients except one. The incidence of AKI in RARP group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (p < 0.001). In the RARP group, the serum creatinine level was significantly elevated immediately after the surgery; however, it returned to baseline on postoperative day 1. Surgical procedures were the only independent factor associated with AKI incidence.

Conclusions

This study suggest that compared with RRP and exLRP, RARP is associated with a higher incidence of postoperative AKI, although most patients recover rapidly. Intra-abdominal pneumoperitoneum may contribute to AKI onset.

Perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin in extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal single port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches are two common modalities in single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), but differences in safety and efficacy between the two remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the perioperative, function, and positive surgical margin of extraperitoneal with transperitoneal approaches SP-RARP.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, this study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD 42023409667). We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published up to February 2023. Stata 15.1 software was used to analyze and calculate the risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD).

RESULTS

A total of five studies, including 833 participants, were included in this study. The SP-TPRP group is superior to the SP-EPRP group in intraoperative blood loss (WMD: - 43.92, 95% CI - 69.81, - 18.04; p = 0.001), the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications (RR: 0.55, 95% CI - 0.31, 0.99; p = 0.04), and postoperative continence recovery (RR: 1.23, 95% CI 1.05, 1.45; p = 0.04). Conversely, the hospitalization stays (WMD: 7.88, 95% confidence interval: 0.65, 15.1; p = 0.03) for the SP-EPRP group was shorter than that of the SP-TPRP group. However, there was no significant difference in operation time, postoperative pain score, total incidence of postoperative complications, and positive surgical margin (PSM) rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that both extraperitoneal and extraperitoneal SP-RARP approaches are safe and effective. SP-TPRP is superior to SP-EPRP in postoperative blood loss, the incidence of postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II and above complications, and postoperative continence recovery, but it is accompanied by longer hospital stays.

Surgical and medical co-management optimizes surgical outcomes in older patients with chronic diseases undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

While robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RRP) is a standard mode for localized prostate cancer (PC), the risk of complications in older patients with chronic diseases and complex medical conditions can be a deterrent to surgery. Surgical and medical co-management (SMC) is a new strategy to improve patients' healthcare outcomes in surgical settings.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of older patients with chronic diseases who were cared for with SMC undergoing RRP in our hospital in the past 3 years and compared them with the clinical data from the general urology ward. Preoperative conditions and related indicators of recovery, and incidence of postoperative complications with the Clavien Grade System were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

The indicators of recovery were significantly better, and the incidence rates of complications were significantly reduced in the SMC group at grades I-IV (p < 0.05), as compared to the general urology ward group.

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of care by SMC for older patients focused on early identification, comorbidity management, preoperative optimization, and collaborative management would significantly improve surgical outcomes. The SMC strategy is worthy of further clinical promotion in RRP treatment in older men with chronic diseases and complex medical conditions.

Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS system: initial experience of a tertiary center with a high background in extraperitoneal laparoscopy surgery

PURPOSE

The Hugo™ RAS system is a novel robotic platform with innovative features. However, there are currently no available data on extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed using this system. The objective of this study is to describe the surgical setup and assess the safety and feasibility of the extraperitoneal approach in robotic radical prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS system.

METHODS

Sixteen consecutive patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer underwent extraperitoneal RARP ± lymph node dissection at our institution, between March and May 2023. All RARP procedures were performed extraperitoneal with a modular four-arm configuration. The focus was to describe the operative room setup, trocar placement, tilt and docking angles and evaluate the safety and feasibility of this approach with this robotic platform. Secondary outcomes recorded included, total operative time, console time, estimated bleeding, intra- and postoperative complications, and length of stay after surgery. A descriptive analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

We report on the first sixteen cases of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy performed with the new Hugo™ RAS system. All procedures were completed, without the need for conversion or placement of additional ports. No intraoperative complications or major technical failures that would prevent the completion of surgery were recorded. The median operative time was 211 min (IQR 180-277), and the median console time was 152 min (IQR 119-196). The mean docking time was 4.6 min (IQR 4.1-5.2). The median estimated blood loss and the median time to remove the vesical catheter were 200 mL (IQR 150-400) and 8 days (IQR 7-8), respectively. The median length of stay was 2 days (IQR 2-2). Only one minor complication was registered in the first 30 days.

CONCLUSION

This study provides evidence of the safety and feasibility of the extraperitoneal approach in RARP with the Hugo™ RAS system. The description of the surgical setup in terms of trocar placement, arm-cart disposition, tilt and docking angles offers valuable information for surgeons interested in adopting this surgical approach with the Hugo™ RAS platform.

Risk factors for lymphorrhea and lymphocele after radical prostatectomy: a retrospective case-control study

PURPOSE

To investigate the risk factors for postoperative lymphorrhea or/and lymphocele (PLL) in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical data of 606 patients were retrospectively collected. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was utilized to identify the optimal cutoff value. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to screen the independent predictors of PLL.

RESULTS

Univariate analysis showed that nine factors differed between the PLL and non-PLL group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that low preoperative fibrinogen level, extraperitoneal surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP), and hypoalbuminemia were risk factors and the use of fibrin glue was a protective factor. Correlation analysis showed that the scope of LN dissection (LND) and number of lymph nodes (LNs) dissected were positively correlated with PLL in the extraperitoneal approach, but were not significantly correlated with PLL in the transperitoneal approach. The use of fibrin glue was negatively associated with PLL in the overall procedure and the extraperitoneal approach, but not significantly so in the transperitoneal approach. Comparison of LNs clearance between the two surgical approaches revealed that the extent of LND and number of LNs dissected in the extraperitoneal approach were less than in the transperitoneal approach.

CONCLUSION

During RALRP, more attention should be paid to fully clotting the broken end of lymphatic vessels. The use of fibrin glue could reduce the probability of PLL. The extent of LND or number of LNs dissected were positively correlated with PLL in the extraperitoneal approach.

Single-site multiport vs. conventional multiport robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A propensity score matching comparative study

Objective

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a dynamically evolving technique with its new evolution of single-site RARP. Here we sought to describe our extraperitoneal technique, named the single-site multiport RARP (ssmpRARP) using the da Vinci Si® platform and compare it with the transperitoneal conventional multiport RARP (cmpRARP).

Materials and Methods

Data were retrospectively collected for patients who underwent RARP for localized prostate cancer from June 2020 to January 2022 in a single center. Propensity score matching was performed based on age, prostate size, body mass index, neoadjuvant hormonal therapy usage, prostate-specific antigen levels, and clinical T stage. The differences between the matched two groups were investigated.

Results

Of the patients, 20 underwent ssmpRARP and 42 underwent cmpRARP during the period. After matching, 18 patients from each group were selected. Median follow-up was 7.8 months (2–12 months) for the ssmpRARP group, and 15.0 months (3–26 months) for cmpRARP. The demographic features between the two groups were comparable. The median total operative time, estimated blood loss, pathologic data, early follow-up outcomes, and hospitalization stays and costs were similar between the two groups. The ssmpRARP group tended to return to their bowel activities earlier (44.78 ± 10.83 h vs. 54.89 ± 12.97 h, p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in complication rates.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility and safety of performing extraperitoneal ssmpRARP using the da Vinci Si® robotic platform. Our technique showed comparable short-term outcomes with the transperitoneal cmpRARP. Prospective trials and long-term follow-up are necessary to confirm these results.

Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis

We aim to evaluate the differences in peri-operative characteristics, surgical complications, and oncological and functional control between the extraperitoneal RARP (EP-RARP) and transperitoneal RARP (TP-RARP). A comprehensive database search was performed up to March 2021 for eligible studies comparing outcomes between EP-RARP versus TP-RARP. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed to control for heterogeneity and risk of bias. A total of 16 studies were included with 3897 patients, including 2201 (56.5%) EP-RARPs and 1696 (43.5%) TP-RARPs. When compared to TP-RARP, EP-RARP offers faster operative time (MD - 14.4 min; 95% CI - 26.3, - 2.3), decreased length of post-operative stay (MD - 0.9 days, 95% CI - 1.3, - 0.4), and decreased rates of post-operative ileus (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.7) and inguinal hernia formation (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.5). There were no significant differences in total complications, estimated blood loss, positive surgical margins, or continence at 6 months. In this review, EP-RARP delivered similar oncological and functional outcomes, while also offering faster operative time, decreased length of post-operative stay, and decreased rates of post-operative ileus and inguinal hernia formation when compared to TP-RARP. These findings provide evidence-based data for surgical approach optimization and prompts future research to examine whether these findings hold true with recent advances in single-port RARP and outpatient RARP.

A novel "three-port" trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Background

To introduce a novel “three-port” trocar placement technique for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 300 patients with PCa who received surgical treatment between November 2010 and June 2015 at our institution. They were divided into group A, three-port LRP; group B, conventional four-five-port LRP; group C, open RP (ORP); and group D, robotic-assisted RP (RARP). A learning curve was analyzed by dividing patients of group A into the early and late stages.

Results

All groups were comparable with regard to the preoperative characteristics except for the relatively smaller prostate volume in group A. The three-port LRP operations were performed successfully with only 8 cases of conversion to the conventional LRP. None of any severe complications or conversion to ORP occurred. In group A, the mean operative time (OT) duration was 113.8 min, the mean estimated blood loss (EBL) was 94.2 ml, the mean drainage days was 4.0 days, the mean hospitalization was 5.1 days, and 27.8% of the prostate specimen margins (PSM) were positive. The differences of OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization, and transfusion in group A were statistically significant among the majority of the other groups (p < 0.05). After undergoing the early stages of a learning curve analysis in three-port LRP, the EBL was obviously decreased.

Conclusions

Three-port LRP is a novel technique that exhibits superior intraoperative advantages to the conventional LRP. Due to its less OT, EBL, drainage days, hospitalization, and transfusion with a shorter learning curve, it should be recommended and popularized in the clinical practice.

Techniques of robotic radical prostatectomy for the management of prostate cancer: which one, when and why

The advent of robotic assistance in surgery has completely revolutionized the surgical management of prostate cancer. It enables precise dissection and reconstruction in order to maximize oncological and functional outcomes. In many parts of the world, robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has evolved to become the surgical standard of care for localized disease, including in appropriately selected patients with high risk prostate cancer. Its role has also been expanded to encompass cytoreductive prostatectomy and salvage radical prostatectomy. As surgical expertise grows with robotic assistance, several novel and non-radical approaches have been developed to further mitigate treatment side effects. Patient characteristics, disease factors and surgeon expertise are important metrics for consideration when selecting the most appropriate technique for any given patient.