Learning Curve and Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in 200 Initial Japanese Cases by a Single Surgeon

To determine the feasibility and efficacy of a laparoscopic approach to the radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). A transperitoneal laparoscopic technique was developed to perform an RRP. Intra-abdominal access was obtained through five 10-mm trocars. After dissection of the prostate, the urethrovesical anastomosis was created via a transvesical approach. The prostate was removed by extending the umbilical incision. Between September 1991 and May 1995, nine laparoscopic RRPs were performed. The operative time averaged 9.4 hours. Only 1 of 9 patients had a positive surgical margin that involved the urethra. Six of 9 patients were completely continent postoperatively. Of the 4 patients who were potent preoperatively, 2 continued to have erections. There were three complications: cholecystitis, thrombophlebitis associated with a pulmonary embolism, and a small bowel hernia into a trocar site. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is feasible but currently offers no advantage over open surgery with regard to tumor removal, continence, potency, length of stay, convalescence, and cosmetic result.

Contemporary techniques of radical prostatectomy achieve excellent oncologic outcomes; erectile dysfunction is the most common adverse effect. We have modified our technique of robotic radical prostatectomy (Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy [VIP]) in an attempt to minimize decrease of erectile function while maintaining the excellent oncologic outcomes achieved by the radical retropubic prostatectomy. We present our current technique of VIP with preservation of the lateral prostatic fascia ("veil of Aphrodite"). A total of 2652 patients with localized carcinoma prostate underwent VIP. The salient features of our current technique are early transection of the bladder neck, preservation of the prostatic fascia, and control of the dorsal vein complex after dissection of the prostatic apex. Oncologic and functional outcomes were obtained through a questionnaire collected by a third party not involved in patient care. Complete follow-up information was obtained in 1142 patients with a minimum follow-up of 12 mo (range: 12-66 mo; median: 36 mo). The actuarial 5-yr biochemical recurrence rate was 8.4% and the actual biochemical recurrence rate was 2.3%. Median duration of incontinence was 4 wk; 0.8% patients had total incontinence at 12 mo. The intercourse rate was 93% in men with no preoperative erectile dysfunction undergoing veil nerve-sparing surgery, although only 51% returned to baseline function. VIP with veil nerve sparing offers oncologic and continence results that are comparable to the results of conventional nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Early potency results are encouraging.

The authors from the Vattikuti Institute in the USA report a prospective comparison of radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted prostatectomy. They found that the robot-assisted procedure was safer, and yielded favourable oncological and functional results. They also present work in association with the Department of Urology in Mansoura into robot-assisted radical cystoprostatectomy and urinary diversion, and point out the advantages and disadvantages associated with performing the most complex types of urinary diversion. There is also an interesting paper relating to the association between sexual factors and prostate cancer, from authors in institutions in Australia, New Zealand and Italy. They found that in a case-control study of men aged <70 years, ejaculatory frequency was negatively associated with the risk of prostate cancer. Technology has made many contributions to the management of urological patients. The classic example is that of urinary stone management. Authors from the USA evaluated cyroablation of renal carcinoma in patients with solitary kidneys. They are encouraged by their results and suggest that there is merit in this treatment, but indicate the need for a longer follow-up. To prospectively compare standard radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and the robotically assisted Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy (VIP) in the management of localized prostate cancer. The study was a single-institution, prospective, unrandomized comparison of histopathological, and functional outcomes, at baseline and during and after surgery, in 100 patients undergoing RRP and 200 undergoing VIP. While the variables before surgery, the operative duration (163 vs 160 min) and pathological stages were comparable, there were significant differences in the measured outcomes. The blood loss was 910 and 150 mL for RRP and VIP, respectively, and transfusion was greater after RRP (67% vs none; both P < 0.001). There were four times as many complications after RRP (20% vs 5%, P < 0.05), the haemoglobin level at discharge was lower (100 vs 130 g/L, P < 0.005) and the hospital stay longer (3.5 vs 1.2 days; P < 0.05). Most (93%) of VIP and none of the RRP patients were discharged within 24 h (P < 0.001); the duration of catheterization was twice as long after RRP (15.8 vs 7 days; P < 0.05). Positive margin was more frequent after RRP (23% vs 9%, P < 0.05). After VIP, patients achieved continence and return of erections more quickly than after RRP (160 vs 44, and 180 vs 440 days, both P < 0.5). The median return to intercourse was 340 days after VIP but after RRP half the patients have as yet not resumed intercourse at 700 days (P < 0.05). The VIP procedure appears to be safer, less bloody and requires shorter hospitalization and catheterization. The oncological and functional results were favourable in patients undergoing VIP.