New Evolution of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Center Experience with PERUSIA Technique

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the standard surgical treatment of organ-confined prostate cancer in patients with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. In a recent prospective study, we described the PERUSIA (Posterior, Extraperitoneal, Robotic, Under Santorini, Intrafascial, Anterograde) technique, which is an extraperitoneal full nerve sparing robotic RP, showing its feasibility and safety. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the peri-operative, oncologic, and functional outcomes of the PERUSIA technique. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 454 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies (RARP) performed using the PERUSIA technique from January 2012 to October 2019. We evaluated perioperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, catheterization time, complication rate, length of stay), oncological (positive surgical margins and biochemical recurrence), and functional outcomes in terms of urinary continence and sexual potency. The overall complication rate was 16%, positive surgical margins were 8.1%, and biochemical recurrence occurred in 8.6% at median follow-up of 47 months. Urinary continence was achieved in 69% of cases the day after the removal of the catheter, in 92% at 3 months, and in 97% at 12 months after surgery. The average rate of sexual potency was 72% and 82% respectively 3 and 12 months after surgery. Our findings show that the PERUSIA technique is a safe extraperitoneal approach to perform a full nerve sparing technique providing exciting functional outcomes.

Related collections

Most cited references 43

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019

Kimberly D Miller, Leticia Nogueira, Angela Mariotto … (2019)

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase in the United States because of the growth and aging of the population as well as advances in early detection and treatment. To assist the public health community in better serving these individuals, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate every 3 years to estimate cancer prevalence in the United States using incidence and survival data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries; vital statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics; and population projections from the US Census Bureau. Current treatment patterns based on information in the National Cancer Data Base are presented for the most prevalent cancer types. Cancer-related and treatment-related short-term, long-term, and late health effects are also briefly described. More than 16.9 million Americans (8.1 million males and 8.8 million females) with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2019; this number is projected to reach more than 22.1 million by January 1, 2030 based on the growth and aging of the population alone. The 3 most prevalent cancers in 2019 are prostate (3,650,030), colon and rectum (776,120), and melanoma of the skin (684,470) among males, and breast (3,861,520), uterine corpus (807,860), and colon and rectum (768,650) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost two-thirds (64%) are aged 65 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by follow-up care providers. Although there are growing numbers of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care.

0 comments Cited 1609 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Classification of Surgical Complications

Daniel Dindo, Nicolas Demartines, Pierre-Alain Clavien (2004)

0 comments Cited 1283 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

Vincenzo Ficarra, Giacomo Novara, Thomas E. Ahlering … (2012)

Although the initial robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) series showed 12-mo potency rates ranging from 70% to 80%, the few available comparative studies did not permit any definitive conclusion about the superiority of this technique when compared with retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). The aims of this systematic review were (1) to evaluate the current prevalence and the potential risk factors of erectile dysfunction after RARP, (2) to identify surgical techniques able to improve the rate of potency recovery after RARP, and (3) to perform a cumulative analysis of all available studies comparing RARP versus RRP or LRP. A literature search was performed in August 2011 using the Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Only comparative studies or clinical series including >100 cases reporting potency recovery outcomes were included in this review. Cumulative analysis was conducted using Review Manager v.4.2 software designed for composing Cochrane Reviews (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). We analyzed 15 case series, 6 studies comparing different techniques in the context of RARP, 6 studies comparing RARP with RRP, and 4 studies comparing RARP with LRP. The 12- and 24-mo potency rates ranged from 54% to 90% and from 63% to 94%, respectively. Age, baseline potency status, comorbidities index, and extension of the nerve-sparing procedure represent the most relevant preoperative and intraoperative predictors of potency recovery after RARP. Available data seem to support the use of cautery-free dissection or the use of pinpointed low-energy cauterization. Cumulative analyses showed better 12-mo potency rates after RARP in comparison with RRP (odds ratio [OR]: 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-5.43; p=0.002). Only a nonstatistically significant trend in favor of RARP was reported after comparison with LRP (OR: 1.89; p=0.21). The incidence of potency recovery after RARP is influenced by numerous factors. Data coming from the present systematic review support the use of a cautery-free technique. This update of previous systematic reviews of the literature showed, for the first time, a significant advantage in favor of RARP in comparison with RRP in terms of 12-mo potency rates. Copyright © 2012. Published by Elsevier B.V.