Open Versus Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Obese Men

Rectal Injury During Radical Prostatectomy: Incidence, Management, and Outcomes in Single-Center Experience

Background: Rectal injury (RI) is a rare yet serious complication of radical prostatectomy (RP). In this study, we aimed to assess the incidence, risk factors, management strategies, and outcomes of RI during RP. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 382 patients who underwent RP between 2012 and 2024. Cases of RI were identified intraoperatively, and repair techniques, including two-layer rectal wall closure and vesicourethral anastomosis, were recorded. Risk factors, such as prior pelvic surgery and high-risk pathological features, were also analyzed. Postoperative continence status at 12 months was evaluated using daily pad count, and erectile dysfunction was evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) Results: RI was observed in 2.4% of patients (n = 9), and repairs were successfully completed intraoperatively in all cases. During multivariate analysis, the BMI was found to be protective against RI. Among RI patients, one patient developed a rectourethral fistula, which required reoperation and diversion colostomy; however, six months after the closure colostomy, the fistula persisted, and the patient suffered from severe incontinence. The postoperative 12-month IIEF-5 median score was 7. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of early intraoperative detection and meticulous surgical repair of RI during RP. Diagnostic measures, such as pneumatic testing and rectal wall monitoring, can mitigate postoperative complications. Our findings contribute to a better understanding of RI management and underscore the importance of individualized surgical approaches for high-risk patients.

Robotic radical prostatectomy after aborted prostatectomy: still feasible? The experience from a tertiary care center

To describe the surgical management of patients who had radical prostatectomy previously attempted but aborted due to diverse causes. Patients who underwent an "aborted prostatectomy" were extracted from the institutional prostatectomy database. A description of the tailored robotic approach was reported for each case. Tips and tricks for the accomplishment of robotic prostatectomy after aborted prostatectomy were reported. Six clinical cases were analyzed. Three patients had aborted prostatectomy due to complicated dissection hindered by pelvic mesh and bowel adhesions; one prostatectomy was aborted due to anesthesiology/respiratory matters; one for narrow pelvis; one due to abnormal pelvic vascular anatomy. All patients successfully underwent robotic prostatectomy at our institution. In five patients, standard transperitoneal robotic approach was performed. In one patient, robotic transperineal approach was mandatory. Median operative time was 282 min (86-460). Median estimated blood loss was 325 mL (50-1000). Two patients had positive surgical margins. One patient was found with nodal metastasis at final pathology. Neither perioperative nor postoperative complications were reported. At last follow-up, PSA was undetectable in 5/6 patients. Even after previous aborted prostatectomy, robot-assisted prostatectomy is feasible, with acceptable results. The case-by-case tailoring of the technique is the key for a successful intervention.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes for Rectal Injury During Radical Prostatectomy: A Population-based Study

BACKGROUND

Rectal injury (RI) is a rare but potentially serious complication of radical prostatectomy (RP). Current evidence is limited owing to relatively small cohorts from select, tertiary referral centers.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the incidence of and potential risk factors for RI during radical RP at a population level in the USA.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using the National Inpatient Sample database (2003-2012), we identified patients with prostate cancer who underwent RP. Survey-weighted cohorts were created based on the diagnosis and repair of RI during initial hospitalization. Data included demographics, hospital characteristics, surgical details, complications, and perioperative outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for RI.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Of 614 294 men who underwent RP, there were 2900 (0.5%) RIs, with a 26% decline from 2003-2006 to 2009-2012 (p<0.01). Patients with RI were slightly older (62.0 vs 61.2 yr; p<0.01) and more commonly of African ancestry (0.8% vs 0.4% Caucasians; p<0.01). RI was more common among patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), metastatic disease, and low body mass index (BMI; p<0.05). The RI incidence was higher for open (0.6%) compared to laparoscopic (0.4%) and robotic RP (0.2%; p<0.01). RI was more common at rural (0.8% vs 0.5% urban), nonteaching (0.6% vs 0.4% teaching), and low-volume hospitals (0.6% vs 0.3% high-volume; p<0.01). Complication rates (28% vs 11%; p<0.01) and length of stay (4.8 vs 2.3 d; p<0.01) were greater in the RI group. Multivariable analysis identified African ancestry, BPH, and metastatic cancer as predictors of RI, while robotic approach, high-volume hospital, and obesity reduced the risk (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

RI during RP is a rare complication, but is more common among men with African ancestry and for procedures carried out using an open surgical technique or in low-volume hospitals, and among those with low BMI, BPH, or metastatic disease.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In a large US population, we found that rectal injury (RI) is a rare complication of radical prostatectomy, and that the risk of RI can increase according to patient- and hospital-specific characteristics.

Exploring positive surgical margins after minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: Does body habitus really make a difference ?

BACKGROUND

Positive surgical margins (PSMs) at radical prostatectomy (RP) are generally recognized as a surrogate of poor or difficult dissection of the prostatic gland. In open RP cohorts, obesity seems to be associated to an increased risk of PSMs, probably due to the technical challenge that obese men pose to surgical access. Minimally invasive RP has been claimed to possibly reduce PSM rate. Aim of the study was to explore the impact of obesity and body habitus on PSM risk and their localisation during laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed 539 prospectively enrolled patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted RP with pT2 prostate cancer. The outcome measured was rate of PSM according to the BMI and surgical approach (laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted). Patients were categorized in BMI<25kg/m², BMI 25-29.9kg/m² and BMI >30kg/m² groups respectively and compared using Kruskall-Wallis or χ² test, as appropriate. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to assess the impact of BMI and surgical technique on PSM risk.

RESULTS

Overall, 127 (24%) of men had PSMs detected at final specimen evaluation. Mean PSM length was 3.9±3.4mm, and 30 (6%) men presented significant margins ≥4mm. Analysing the rate of PSMs across BMI categories, no significant association between increased BMI and PSM was detected (all P>0.48). On uni- and multivariate logistic regression BMI was not a statistically significant risk factor for PSM (P=0.14), nor was the minimally invasive technique (laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) (P=0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study obese men do not appear to have a significant increase in risk of PSMs at RP compared to lean and overweight men when operated by a minimally invasive approach. The magnified vision and increased access to the pelvis allowed by a laparoscopic and robotic-assisted approach may be accountable for our findings. Larger studies are needed to validate our results.

LEVEL OF PROOF

4.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery for lower rectal cancer: the impact of visceral obesity on surgical outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) for lower rectal cancer and for visceral obesity cases, which have been regarded as challenging situations in rectal cancer surgery, comparing their surgical outcomes with those of conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS).

METHODS

Patients who underwent robotic or laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer were included in this retrospective study. Surgical outcomes including perioperative, postoperative, and pathological data were compared between the RALS and CLS groups. Patients were stratified into obese and non-obese groups according to visceral fat area (VFA). Obesity was defined by VFA ≥130 cm(2).

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-six patients were enrolled, including 127 cases in the RALS group and 109 cases in the CLA group. A total of 82 (34.7 %) cases were categorized as VFA obese, including 52 cases in the RALS and 30 cases in the CLS groups. RALS for lower rectal cancer was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.007), a lower overall complication rate (9.4 % in RALS vs 23.9 % in CLS, p = 0.003), and shorter postoperative stay (p < 0.01) than CLS, with similar operative time and pathological results. The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the RALS group with VFA obesity; blood loss was significantly less and the postoperative stay was shorter in the RALS group with visceral obesity.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that RALS has some advantages in terms of surgical outcomes over CLS in challenging situations of rectal cancer surgery, such as lower rectal cancer cases and visceral obesity cases.