Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for treatment of large prostatic adenomas: surgical technique and outcomes from a high-volume robotic centre

• Published in: World journal of urology 2023-02, Vol.41 (2), p.515-520
• Main Authors: Cardi, Antonio, Palleschi, Giovanni, Patruno, Giulio, Tuffu, Giovanni, D’Amico, Francesco Emilio, De Vico, Antonio, Carilli, Marco, Pacini, Patrizio, Pletto, Simone, D’Elia, Gianluca
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Cancer surgery; Catheterization; Complications; Dosage; Humans; Intubation; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Nephrology; Oncology; Original Article; Patients; Postoperative; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Prospective Studies; Prostate; Prostate cancer; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatectomy - methods; Prostatic Hyperplasia - surgery; Retrospective Studies; Robotic surgery; Robotic Surgical Procedures - methods; Robotics - methods; Robots; Statistical analysis; Surgical techniques; Treatment Outcome; Urinary incontinence; Urological surgery; Urology
• ISSN: 1433-8726; 0724-4983; 1433-8726
• DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04262-2

Purpose Aim of the present study is to describe our robot-assisted simple prostatectomy technique and to report 6-month surgical and clinical outcomes. Methods Eighty men were consecutively submitted to robot-assisted simple prostatectomy in our institution from October 2019 to October 2020. All procedures were performed by the same surgical team. Diagnostic preoperative assessment was based on history, symptoms evaluation by International Prostate Symptom Score, digital rectal examination, flowmetry with post-void residual volume measurement by abdominal ultrasound, prostatic volume estimation by MRI, PSA dosage. Under combined general and subarachnoid anesthesia, surgery was performed via a transperitoneal approach using a Da Vinci Si system in the four-arm configuration. Operative time, blood loss, hospital stay, catheterization time, intraoperative and postoperative complications were assessed. Clinical postoperative 6 months of evaluation was based on physical examination, flowmetry with post-void residual volume measurement, PSA dosage, and International Prostate Symptom Score. Results Mean operative time was 105.29 min, mean hospital staying 5.4 days. Blood loss was low in all cases and only 2 patients received transfusion. Catheterization time was 7 days. According to the Clavien–Dindo classification, only minor (grade I and grade II) intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed. At 6-month postoperative assessment, a statistically significant increase of urinary flow indexes and bladder capacity was recorded, as a significant reduction of urinary residual volume. No patient experienced stress urinary incontinence and the mean postoperative IPSS score was significantly reduced to 4.3. Two patients were diagnosed with incidental prostatic cancer at the histopathological examination. Conclusions Data collected in our experience on a large cohort confirm efficacy and safety of Robot-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy. This procedure allows both short operative time and hospital staying, with low incidence of perioperative complications. This surgical technique can therefore be considered a valid alternative to other procedures for the surgical treatment of large volume prostates. Randomized prospective and comparative studies are warranted in the future to assess if different RASP techniques provide similar surgical and functional outcomes.