Impact of prior abdominal surgery on the outcomes after robotic - assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: single center experience

Single-Port Robotic Radical Prostatectomy Using Transvesical and Transperineal Access in Patients with a Hostile Abdomen

Introduction: Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment is challenging in surgically complex patients. Radical prostatectomy can be performed without peritoneal entry using novel single-port (SP) transperineal (TP) and transvesical (TV) approaches. We sought to examine the outcomes of radical prostatectomy using novel TP and TV approaches in patients with extensive prior abdominal surgeries. Materials and Methods: From 2019 to 2023, 51 patients with extensive prior abdominal surgeries were identified who underwent TP (18) and SP TV (33) robotic radical prostatectomy. Indications included history of various surgeries with open laparotomy, including J-pouch reconstruction (22, 43%), active stoma (14, 27%), and open bowel resection (9, 18%). In all patients, 12/51 (24%) had a history of incisional hernia repair with mesh. A retrospective analysis was performed. Results: All cases were completed without open conversion, bowel injuries, or blood transfusions. Length of stay was 5.6 hours for TV and 22 hours for TP. No opioids were prescribed in 91% of TV vs 56% of TP. One intraoperative complication (ureteral injury) occurred in a patient undergoing the TP approach. Postoperative complications were noted in 14/51 (27%), including 10/18 (56%) TP vs 4/33 (12%) TV. High-grade complications (Clavien 3) occurred in three patients (6%, all TP). Pathologic staging showed pT3 in 26/51 (17 TV vs 9 TP), while the remainder were pT2. Biochemical recurrences were noted in four patients (8%, three TV and one TP). Immediate continence was noted in 30% of TV patients. Long-term continence after 12 months was 92% in TV and 67% in TP. Conclusions: In patients with extensive prior abdominal surgeries, radical prostatectomy is feasible using a TP or TV approach. No bowel injuries or open conversion were observed. The SP TV approach offers advantages of shorter hospital stay, shorter catheter duration, less opioid use, fewer complications, and improved continence recovery.

Efficacy and safety of single port robotic radical prostatectomy and multiport robotic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single port (SP) robot radical prostatectomy and multiport (MP) robot radical prostatectomy.

Methods

Using the China National Knowledge database, EMBASE, Cochrane library, PubMed, and other databases to obtain relevant research, SP robot radical prostatectomy and MP robot radical prostatectomy were comprehensively evaluated. The software used to evaluate the impact of the results in the selected articles was Review Manager 5.2. Deviation analysis, forest plot analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out for the collected data.

Results

A total of 7 related studies that met the criteria were finally included. The data showed that the operation time of MP in the control group was significantly longer than that in the SP group [mean difference (MD) =−13.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): (−17.35, −9.23); P<0.00001; I²=50%]. The duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for SP surgery was shorter than that for MP surgery [MD =−18.30; 95% CI: (−29.17, −7.42); P=0.0010; I²=94%]. The blood loss of SP surgery was less than that of MP surgery [MD =−15.54; 95% CI: (−28.37, −2.71); the total effective rate was 0.02; I²=0%]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between SP and MP surgery [risk ratio (RR) =0.95; 95% CI: (0.55, 1.63); P=0.85; I²=0%]. At the same time, the sensitivity analysis and funnel plot showed that this study was robust and publication bias was limited.

Discussion

Our results show that SP robotic radical prostatectomy is superior to MP robotic radical prostatectomy in terms of efficacy and safety. SP robot radical prostatectomy is worthy of wide promotion.

Radical prostatectomy outcomes in renal transplant recipients: a retrospective case series of Thai patients

Background

The incidence of prostate cancer in renal transplant recipients (RTR) is similar to the general population. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard of care in the management of clinically localized cancer, but is considered complicated due to the presence of adhesions, and the location of transplanted ureter/kidney. To date, a few case series or studies on RP in RTR have been published, especially in Asian patients. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety and report the experience with RP on RTR.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed data of 1270 patients who underwent RP from January 2008 to March 2020, of which 5 patients were RTR. All available baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative data (operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of hospital stay, complication), pathological stage, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and pre/postoperative creatinine were reviewed.

Results

Of the 5 RTR who underwent RPs (1 open radical prostatectomy (ORP), 1 laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), 2 robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (RALRP), and 1 Retzius-sparing RALRP (RS-RALRP)) prostatectomy, the mean age (± SD) was 70 (± 5.62) years. In LRP and RALRP cases, the standard ports were moved slightly medially to prevent graft injury. The mean operative time ranged from 190 to 365 min. The longest operative time and highest EBL (630 ml) was the ORP case due to severe adhesion in Retzius space. For LRP and RALRP cases, the operative times seemed comparable and had EBL of ≤ 300 ml. All RPs were successful without any major intra-operative complication. There was no significant change in graft function. The restorations of urinary continence were within 1 month in RS-RALRP, approximately 6 months in RALRP, and about 1 year in ORP and LRP. Three patients with positive surgical margins had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) persistence at the first follow-up and 1 had later PSA recurrence. Two patients with negative margins were free from biochemical recurrence at 47 and 3 months after their RP.

Conclusions

Our series suggested that all RP techniques are safe and feasible mode of treatment for localized prostate cancer in RTR.