Team-based approach reduces learning curve in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

AIM: We assessed the team approach in reducing the learning curve during our 2-year experience transiting from open to robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (rLRP). METHODS: A team of three urologists progressed through assistant phase to console phase to obtain competency in robotic prostatectomy. One hundred patients underwent rLRP by this team using the da Vinci robotic surgical system from 1 February 2003 to 15 May 2005. RESULTS: The immediate perioperative outcome was divided into three corresponding time frames and the results demonstrated gradual improvement in outcome parameters. The mean set-up time and dissection time were 24+/-14 min and 182+/-52 min, respectively. The mean perioperative blood loss was 272+/-240 mL, and 7% of patients (n=7) required blood transfusion. The mean duration of bladder catheterization was 8.4+/-4.1 days, and mean hospital stay was 2.9+/-1.6 days. There was no perioperative mortality or conversion to open radical prostatectomy. Major complications (4%) included urethrovesical leak requiring re-operation, postoperative cerebrovascular accident, and transient ureteric obstruction. Minor complications (7%) included minor urethrovesical leak, bladder neck stenosis, and urinary tract infection. Mean follow up was 6.6+/-5.0 months. Pathological assessment showed pT2 disease in 55% and pT3 in 45% of specimens. CONCLUSIONS: A team-based approach to robot-assisted LRP helped to reduce the learning curve of the procedure for individual surgeons and continued to show significantly lower perioperative blood loss, transfusion requirements and postoperative pain compared to open radical retropubic prostatectomy.     

Positive margins after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective study of 100 cases performed by 4 different surgeons

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) has been refined by experienced surgeons into a competitive treatment alternative for localized prostate cancer. Less is known, however, about the outcomes of "learning curve" cases from newly trained surgeons. We prospectively studied 100 cases of LRP performed by 2 senior and 2 junior surgeons and addressed the rates of positive margins-an important early endpoint of oncologic efficacy. METHODS: 100 consecutive cases of LRP were performed by two senior (n=62) and two junior surgeons (n=38) by a 5-port transperitoneal route. Whole-mount step-section prostate specimens were examined by Stanford protocol. RESULTS: Positive margins occured in 25% of cases: 18% for pT2a (2/11), 18% for pT2b (11/61), 45% for pT3a (10/22), and 50% for pT3b (2/4) (p=0.002 pT2 vs. pT3). By surgeon experience, the rates were 19% (12/62) for senior and 34% (13/38) for junior (p=0.04). However, in a multiple logistic regression analysis, only pathologic stage (p=0.083) and Gleason sum (p=0.0133) reached statistical significance, while surgeon experience did not (p=0.0992). CONCLUSION: Positive margin rates after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy are significantly influenced by pathologic stage and Gleason score, and are within the range reported from open series. The higher positive margin rate from junior surgeons, although not statistically significant, suggests the need for further study and continued mentoring during surgery and/or video review of cases to improve oncologic results.     

Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes

PURPOSE: The technique of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is difficult to master and is associated with a steep learning curve. We hypothesized that a structured approach to establishing a laparoscopic prostatectomy program would diminish complications during the learning process and that robotic technology would be useful in learning the operation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A structured laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program was introduced at the Vattikuti Urology Institute on October 23, 2000. One of 2 surgeons with a combined experience of more than 500 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies performed or supervised the first prostatectomies, training a third surgeon with extensive "open" surgical skills but no laparoscopic experience. The "trained" surgeon then started performing the operation independently with robotic assistance. The results of this approach were analyzed at the end of 12 months. RESULTS: We performed 48 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies and 50 robot assisted prostatectomies within the 12-month period. The preoperative and intraoperative demographical variables were comparable in both groups as were the operative times, changes in hemoglobin concentrations, durations of hospitalization, positive margin rates and overall complication rates. All measured parameters were comparable to the "best-in-class" values for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy reported in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: A structured approach minimizes complications during the establishment of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy program. Robotic assistance helps skilled "open" surgeons learn the technique of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.     

Comparison of training modalities for performing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience with 1,000 patients

PURPOSE: We report a detailed analysis of different training modalities on the transferability of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy to generations of surgeons. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The first generation surgeon with experience with 600 cases and the second generation surgeon with 150 were trained in open retropubic radical prostatectomy and laparoscopy, whereas the third generation surgeon with 150 cases was trained only laparoscopically. The fourth generation of surgeons with a total of 50 cases was trained in our fellowship program. We analyzed groups of 50 operations. The groups were comparable with respect to patient age, prostate weight and pathological tumor stage. RESULTS: We observed a continual decrease in operative time between (322 to 247 minutes.) and within (332 to 196 minutes.) the analyzed groups. This result was also expressed in a decrease in the time required for anastomosis. A significant decrease was observed for the initial transfusion rate (4% to 10%). No difference was found in the complication rate (ie conversion in 8% to 0% of cases). Pathological outcomes (ie positive margins for pT2/pT3) were comparable in the first 3 surgeon groups (14.9%, 14.2% and 22%, respectively) and available functional results (followup greater than 2 years) did not reveal any influence of the learning curve. A learning curve was observed only for overall operative time and the time required for anastomosis but it was shown to be significantly shorter for the following generations. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a specific training program the personal level of education has a minor impact on the results and reproducibility of the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy technique.     

A multi-institutional comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy, radical perineal prostatectomy, and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer

To evaluate the pathological stage and margin status of patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). We performed a retrospective analysis of 196 patients who underwent RRP, RPP, and RALP as part of our multi-institution program. Fifty-seven patients underwent RRP, 41 RPP, and 98 RALP. Patient age, preoperative prostate specific antigen (PSA), preoperative Gleason score, preoperative clinical stage, pathological stage, postoperative Gleason score, and margin status were reviewed. The three groups had similar preoperative characteristics, except for PSA (8.4, 6.5, and 6.2 ng/ml) for the retropubic, robotic, and perineal approaches. Margins were positive in 12, 24, and 36% of the specimens from RALP, RRP, and RPP, respectively (P = 0.004). The positive margin rates in patients with pT2 tumors were 4, 14, and 19% in the RALP, RRP, and the RPP groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Controlling for age and pre-operative PSA and Gleason score, the rate of positive margins was statistically lower in the RALP versus both the RRP (P = 0.046) and the RPP groups (P = 0.02). In the patients with pT3 tumors, positive margins were observed in 36% of patients undergoing the RALP and 53 and 90% of those patients undergoing the RRP and RPP, respectively (P = 0.015). Controlling for the same factors, the rate of positive margins was statistically lower in the RALP versus the RPP (P = 0.01) but not compared with the RRP patients (P = 0.32). The percentage of positive margins was lower in RALP than in RPP for both pT2 and pT3 tumors. RRP had a higher percentage of positive margins than RALP in the pT2 tumors but not in the pT3 tumors.     

Prostatectomies for localized prostate cancer: a mixed comparison network and cumulative meta-analysis

No consensus has been attained regarding the utility of open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) for localized prostate cancer (PCa). We carried out a network meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis comparing RRP, LRP and RALRP on peri-operative and functional outcome measures. Electronic databases were searched for either randomized clinical trials or cohort studies comparing RALRP either with LRP or RRP in patients with localized PCa. Outcome measures were as follows: overall, pT2 and pT3-positive surgical margins (PSMs); biochemical recurrence (BCR); complication rates; estimated blood loss; blood transfusion rate; continence and potency rates; duration of catheterization and hospital stay. Publication bias, risk of bias and inconsistency were assessed. Inverse heterogeneity model was used for analysis. A total of 45 studies were included for the final analysis. We observed that RALRP and LRP did not differ significantly from RRP with regard to the following outcomes: overall PSM; pT2 and pT3 PSMs; OT; complication rate; continence and potency rates; total blood loss and hospital stay. Duration of catheterization was significantly shorter in RALRP than LRP and RRP while significant reductions in the need for blood transfusion and BCR were observed for both RALRP and LRP in comparison with RRP. To conclude, similar functional, operative and oncologic outcomes were observed for both RALRP and LRP compared to RRP.     

Comparison of oncological outcomes between retropubic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an analysis stratified by surgical experience

Objectives

To compare oncological outcomes of a consecutive retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) series performed by a single surgeon who had performed >750 prior RRPs and was starting to perform RARPs.

Materials and methods

Prospectively collected longitudinal data of 277 RRP and 730 RARP cases over a 5-year period were retrospectively analyzed. The RARP series were divided into 3 subgroups (1st, <250 cases; 2nd, 250–500; and 3rd, >500) according to the surgical period. The positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS) rates were compared at each pathological stage.

Results

The pT2 PSM rates showed no significant difference between the RRP (7.8 %) and RARP series (1st, 9.5 %; 2nd, 14.1 %; and 3rd, 9.8 %) throughout the study period (P = 0.689, 0.079, and 0.688, respectively). Although the pT3 PSM rates of the 1st (50.6 %) and 2nd RARP series (50.0 %) were higher than that of the RRP series (36.0 %; P = 0.044 and P = 0.069, respectively), the 3rd RARP series had a comparable pT3 PSM rate (32.4 %, P = 0.641). The 3-year BCRFS rates of the RRP and RARP series were similar at each pathological stage (pT2, 92.1 vs. 96.8 %, P = 0.517; pT3, 60.0 vs. 67.3 %, P = 0.265, respectively).

Conclusions

The pT2 PSM and short-term BCRFS rates were similar between RRP and RARP, and RARP showed comparable pT3 PSM rate with RRP after >500 cases of surgical experience. Our data suggest that an experienced robotic surgeon at a high-volume center may achieve comparable oncological outcomes with open prostatectomy even in locally advanced disease.     

Self-reported volume of radical prostatectomies among urologists in the USA

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variability in the volume of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RP) performed by urologists in the USA, and the physician characteristics that predict RP volume, as previous studies showed that individual surgeon volume for RP is associated with clinical outcomes. METHODS: In a nationwide, representative survey of 2000 urologists who treat prostate carcinoma in the USA, we asked respondents to indicate a numerical range of RPs they perform each year (none, 1-10, 11-30, and >30, the last which we defined as 'high volume'). We then identified characteristics of the provider and practice associated with a high volume of RPs. Supplementing survey results with other national data, we estimated the proportion of all RPs in the USA performed by 'high-volume' urologists. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 66.1% (1313 urologists) with no differences between the respondents and non-respondents for the measured demographic variables. Among urologists who performed RPs (89.1% of the sample), 37.3% did < or = 10, 46.9% 11-30 and 15.8% >30 RPs/year. Academic and urological oncology fellowship-trained urologists were, respectively, 41% and 27% more likely than private-practice and non-fellowship-trained urologists to have a high volume of RPs. Of all RPs performed yearly in the USA, only an estimated 46.1% were by high-volume urologists. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of urologists report a RP volume that might be associated with higher rates of cardiac, respiratory, vascular, wound-healing, and genitourinary complications. Further study is needed to characterize the possible relationships between RP volume and tumour recurrence, survival, and long-term erectile dysfunction and incontinence.     

A centralized comparison of radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy specimens: is there a difference according to the surgical approach?

PURPOSE: We performed a central review of pathology specimens from radical perineal and radical retropubic prostatectomies performed by a single surgeon. We determined whether differences exist in the 2 approaches in regard to the ability to obtain adequate surgical margins around the tumor and adequate extracapsular tissue around the prostate, and avoid inadvertent capsular incision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The review included whole mount prostates from 60 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy and 40 who underwent radical perineal prostatectomy. The pathologist (N. S. G.) was blinded to the surgical approach. All prostatectomies were consecutive and performed by the same surgeon (H. J. K.). To ensure consistency of the pathological measurements patients were excluded from analysis if they had undergone preoperative androgen ablation or a nerve sparing procedure, leaving 45 retropubic and 27 perineal prostatectomy specimens for further evaluation. Pertinent clinical parameters were assessed and a detailed pathological analysis of each specimen was performed. RESULTS: In the retropubic and perineal groups 78% of the tumors were organ confined (stage pT2) with extracapsular extension (stage pT3) in the majority of the remaining patients. There was no significant difference in the positive margin rate for the retropubic and perineal procedures (16% and 22%, p = 0.53) or for Gleason 6 and 7 tumors only in the 2 groups (10% and 17%, respectively, p = 0.47). The capsular incision rate was 4% in each group. The distance of the tumor from the posterolateral margins and the amount of extracapsular tissue excised were equivalent in each group. Subgroups of patients with a prostate of less than 50 gm. and containing only low grade, low stage neoplasms were also analyzed. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in any variable. CONCLUSIONS: Radical perineal prostatectomy is comparable to radical retropubic prostatectomy for obtaining adequate surgical margins, avoiding inadvertent capsular incisions and excising adequate extracapsular tissue around tumor foci. Additional patient accrual and prostate specific antigen followup would further help validate the similar efficacy of the 2 surgical approaches as treatment for prostate cancer.     

Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: analysis of an experienced open surgeon’s learning curve after 300 procedures

To critically analyse the learning curve for a single experienced open surgeon converting to robotic surgery. From February 2006 to July 2009, 300 patients underwent a robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) by a single urologist. This study is a prospective analysis of the baseline patient and tumour characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative data, and histopathologic features. To analyse the RALP learning curve, the joinpoint regression method was used. Mean age of the patient was 61.3 years (range 46–76). Mean pre-operative PSA level was 7 ng/ml (range 0.7–41), and follow-up was 14 months (0.7–41). The mean operating time was 185 min (range 119–525). One hundred and ten cases were required to achieve 3-h proficiency. There were no conversions. The mean hospital stay was 2.8 days (range 2–7). Major complications rate was 1.3%. The blood transfusion rate was 0.6%. The overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 21.3%. pT2 and pT3 PSM rate was 10 and 44%, respectively. The joinpoint regression method showed that the learning curve started to plateau for the overall PSM rate after 205 cases (95% CI 200–249). For pT2 and pT3, PSM rate, the learning curve tended to flatten after 130 and 170 cases, respectively. The analysis of an experienced open surgeon learning curve in transferring his skills to the robotic platform has shown that 3-h proficiency requires 110 cases. The overall, pT2, and pT3 PSM rate take approximately 200, 130, and 170 cases, respectively, to flatten.     

Erectile Function and Oncologic Outcomes Following Open Retropubic and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Results from the LAParoscopic Prostatectomy Robot Open Trial

Background

Whether surgeons perform better utilising a robot-assisted laparoscopic technique compared with an open approach during prostate cancer surgery is debatable.

Clinical study of radical retropubic prostatectomy for prostate cancer]

PURPOSE: To evaluate the results of radical retropubic prostatectomy in patients treated at a single institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 1985 and July 1997, 76 patients with prostate cancer underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy, including 73 receiving pelvic lymphadenectomy. The median age and follow-up time were 68 years old and 44 months, respectively. The pathological stage was pT0 in 6 patients, pT2 in 29, pT3 in 39, pT4 in 2, and pN+ in 22. RESULTS: The surgical margin was positive in 10% of the pT2 patients and 61% of the pT3 patients. Twelve patients had recurrence. Recurrence was shown by biological failure in 4 patients and clinical failure in 8. The disease-free 5-year survival rates (Kaplan-Meier) were 100% in pT0 patients, 87% in pT2, 72% in pT3, 50% in pT4, 77% in pN-, 75% in pN+, 73% for a positive surgical-margin, and 83% for a negative surgical-margin. There were no statistical differences between any of these factors. However, the disease-free survival rate in pT3 patients with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (PDA) who received postoperative radiotherapy combined with hormonal therapy was significantly superior to that in patients with the same characteristics who received hormonal therapy (100% vs 27%; p = 0.011). The cause-specific 5-year survival rates were 100% in pT0, 100% in pT2, 92% in pT3, 50% in pT4, 94% in pN-, 93% in pN+, 93% for a positive surgical-margin, 98% for a negative surgical-margin, 100% in the aforementioned pT3 patients with PDA and postoperative radiotherapy combined with hormonal therapy and 86% in pT3 patients with PDA and postoperative hormonal therapy. There were no statistical differences between any of these factors. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that radical prostatectomy is available for both organ-confined and non organ-confined advanced prostate cancer. Postoperative radiotherapy combined with hormonal therapy is especially useful for patients in pT3 with PDA.     

Surgical margins in radical prostatectomy: a comparison between retropubic and laparoscopic surgery

Objectives To compare positive surgical margins in both radical retropubic prostatectomies and laparoscopic surgery in two reference centres in Brazil. Materials and methods One hundred and seventy nine pathological studies from patients, who underwent radical prostatectomy due to prostate adenocarcinoma, 89 submitted to retropubic surgery and 90 to laparoscopic surgery, were analyzed. Inclusion criteria Patients with PSA ≤15 ng/ml, and a Gleason score ≤7 at the prostate biopsy, maximum T2 clinical staging. Results There has been surgical margin compromising in 41.57% of the patients submitted to retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP), 34.21% of which were at pT2 stage and 84.61% were at pT3 stage. In patients submitted to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) positive surgical margin was found at 24.44% of the cases: 20.98% of which were at pT2 stage and 55.55% at pT3 stage. Conclusions In the analyzed samples, proportion of positive surgical margin was higher in RRP than in LRP (P = 0.023). A higher number of patients on a randomized prospective study would be necessary for a better comparison between the groups.     

Impact of Partin nomogram on presurgical planning: intrafascial versus interfascial nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

We studied the impact of using the Partin nomogram in tailoring the nerve sparing approach during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. From July 2008 to July 2009, 168 patients underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with bilateral nerves spared. All of the first 70 patients (cohort I) had intrafascial nerve sparing, while the Partin nomogram was used to determine the nerve sparing approach in the next 98 patients (cohort II). In patients with a probability greater than 53% of having pathologically non-organ-confined disease, conventional interfascial nerve sparing was performed; otherwise, intrafascial nerve sparing was carried out. Preoperative patient demographics were similar between the two cohorts. In cohort II, 68 and 30 patients had the bilateral nerves spared intrafascially and interfascially, respectively. Overall, the prevalence of pT3 disease in cohort I was 24.3% and in cohort II was 21.4%. The positive surgical margin rate in cohort I was 15.7% while that in cohort II was 6.1%. There was no significant difference in positive surgical margin rate in organ-confined (pT2) disease between the two groups (7.5 and 5.2%). On the other hand, pT3 positive surgical margin rate was significantly reduced in cohort II (41.2 and 4.8%, P = 0.013). Using the Partin nomogram in deciding interfascial versus intrafascial nerve sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy gave a significant reduction of positive surgical margin rate in pT3 prostate cancers.     

Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years

Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

OBJECTIVE

To critically analyse the learning curve for one experienced open surgeon converting to robotic surgery for radical prostatectomy (RP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2006 to December 2008, 502 patients had retropubic RP (RRP) while concurrently 212 had robot‐assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP) by one urologist. We prospectively compared the baseline patient and tumour characteristics, variables during and after RP, histopathological features and early urinary functional outcomes in the two groups.

RESULTS

The patients in both groups were similar in age, preoperative prostate‐specific antigen level, and prostatic volume. However, there were more high‐stage (T2b and T3, P= 0.02) and ‐grade (Gleason 9, P= 0.01) tumours in the RRP group. The mean (range) operative duration was 147 (75–330) min for RRP and 192 (119–525) min for RALP (P < 0.001); 110 cases were required to achieve ‘3‐h proficiency’. Major complication rates were 1.8% and 0.8% for RALP and RRP, respectively. The overall positive surgical margin (PSM) rate was 21.2% in the RALP and 16.7% in the RRP group (P= 0.18). PSM rates for pT2 were comparable (11.6% vs 10.1%, P= 0.74). pT3 PSM rates were higher for RALP than RRP (40.5% vs 28.8%, P= 0.004). The learning curve started to plateau in the overall PSM rate after 150 cases. For the pT2 and pT3 PSM rates, the learning curve tended to flatten after 140 and 170 cases, respectively. The early continence rates were comparable (P= 0.07) but showed a statistically significant improvement after 200 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of the learning curve has shown that certain components of the curve for an experienced open surgeon transferring skills to the robotic platform take different times. We suggest that patient selection is guided by these milestones, to maximize oncological outcomes.     

Margin control in robotic and laparoscopic prostatectomy: What are the REAL outcomes?

Our institutional experience and relevant literature on surgical margin rates with laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy are summarized. Differences in surgical margins were assessed between patients undergoing open or robotic-assisted prostatectomy by experienced surgeons, and placed in context with a review of the literature. Surgical margins and location were similar between patients undergoing open or robotic prostatectomy. Pathologic stage, baseline prostate-specific antigen, and Gleason score all impacted the risk of a positive surgical margin. Experienced surgeons can achieve comparable outcomes in terms of surgical margins. Disease burden plays a significant role in positive surgical margins.     

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic and radical retropubic prostatectomy generate similar positive margin rates in low and intermediate risk patients

ObjectiveRobotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is being increasingly utilized. To assess the efficacy of the operation, we compared apical and overall margin status for RALP with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in a group of contemporary patients.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 98 consecutive RRPs and then 94 RALPs from a single institution. Groups were analyzed and matched with regard to preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cancer grade, pathologic stage, and tumor volume. Surgical margins were quantitated.ResultsClinicopathologic parameters were compared and additional high risk patients were observed in the RRP vs. RALP group. To risk-adjust these patient groups, those meeting preoperative high risk criteria were excluded from further positive margin analysis. Postoperatively, the average tumor volume was 13% in both groups. Pathologic stage pT3 was similar between RRP (14%) and RALP (11%). A positive surgical margin (PSM) was found in 12 cases (14%) after RRP and 11 cases (13%) after RALP including apical margins. Positive margins at the apex, non-apex, and both were statistically similar between groups.ConclusionsIn this study, no differences were seen between robotic prostatectomy with regard to apical or overall margin status compared with open prostatectomy in lower risk patients. This suggests that despite improved visualization, RALP generates a similar margin status as RRP.     

Oncological outcome of laparoscopic prostatectomy

AIM: Oncological outcomes including surgical margin status and biological progression-free survival (bPFS) were analyzed in patients who underwent laparoscopic prostatectomy (LRP) only. METHODS: A total of 136 patients who underwent LRP only without lymph node metastasis or perioperative supportive therapy between April 2000 and October 2005 were analyzed. All patients received > or =6 months postoperative follow-up. Biological progression was defined as elevation of prostate-specific antigen by >0.2 ng/mL. RESULTS: The positive margin (ew+) rate was 36.8% and the 3-year bPFS was 72.6% for all patients. Positive margin rates in pT2a-b, pT2c, pT3a and pT3b were 10.0%, 27.5%, 77.3% and 53.8%, respectively. Three-year bPFS rates in pT2, pT3a and pT3b were 91.8%, 66.8% and 44.9%, respectively. Although the positive margin rate at posterior and anterior sites decreased as more patients were recruited, no significant improvements were observed at apex and base sites. Three-year bPFS rates in pT2 ew-, pT2 ew+, pT3 ew- and pT3 ew+ were 95.8%, 85.7%, 81% and 48.5%, respectively, indicating that positive margins exert a greater impact in pT3 disease than in pT2 disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although 3-year bPFS results were almost identical to previous reports of LRP and retropubic radical prostatectomy, the positive margin rate in pT3a disease was particularly high, probably due to immature surgical skill. Although positive margins at posterior and anterior sites decreased with the leaning curve, improvements are needed to reduce positive margin rates at the apex. Positive margins exert greater impact in pT3 disease than in pT2 disease.     

A direct comparison of robotic assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single institution experience

PURPOSE: We compared a single institution experience with radical prostatectomy using a pure laparoscopic technique vs a robotically assisted technique with regard to preoperative, intraoperative or postoperative parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2003 to May 2005 we reviewed 133 consecutive patients who underwent extraperitoneal robot assisted radical prostatectomy and compared them to 133 match-paired patients treated with a pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic approach. The patients were matched for age, body mass index, previous abdominopelvic surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, prostate specific antigen, pathological stage and Gleason score. Preoperative, perioperative and postoperative data, including complications and oncological results, were analyzed between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The 2 groups were statistically similar with respect to age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score and clinical stage. No statistical differences were observed regarding operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay or bladder catheterization between the 2 groups. The transfusion rate was 3% and 9.8% for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.03). Conversion from robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy was necessary in 4 cases. None of the laparoscopic radical prostatectomy cases required conversion to an open technique. The percentage of major complications was 6.0% vs 6.8%, respectively (p = 0.80). The overall positive margin rate was 15.8% vs 19.5% for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, respectively (p = 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that the laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy is equivalent to the robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in the hands of skilled laparoscopic urological surgeons at our institution with respect to operative time, operative blood loss, hospital stay, length of bladder catheterization and positive margin rate.     

The “halo effect” in Korea: change in practice patterns since the introduction of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Acquisition of the da Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Mountain View, USA) has enabled robot-assisted surgery to become an acceptable alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Implementation of robotics at a single institution in Korea induced a gradual increase in the number of performances of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) to surgically treat localized prostate cancer. We analyzed the impact of robotic instrumentation on practice patterns among urologists and explain the change in value in ORP and RALP—the standard treatment and the new approach or innovation of robotic technology. The overall number of prostatectomies has increased over time because the number of RALPs has grown drastically whereas the number of OPRs did not decrease during the period of evaluation. Our experience emphasizes the potential of RALP to become the gold standard in the treatment of localized prostate cancer in various parts of the world.