Email this article Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and surgical technique
- Authors: Ilin D.M.1, Guliev B.G.2,1
-
Affiliations:
- City Mariinsky Hospital
- North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov
- Issue: Vol 9, No 4 (2019)
- Pages: 19-24
- Section: Original articles
- URL: https://ogarev-online.ru/uroved/article/view/19230
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/uroved9419-24
- ID: 19230
Cite item
Abstract
To present own initial experience of Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) and surgical technique. In October–November 2019 on the basis of the Urological Department and the Center for Robotic Surgery of City Mariinsky Hospital (Saint Petersburg, Russia) five patients with localized prostate cancer were treated with RS-RARP. The operation time was from 140 to 205 min. The blood loss volume was from 50 to 250 ml. No conversions and intraoperative complications were recorded. Nervous-saving RS-RARP was performed in three patients. No blood transfusions were performed. Two patients faced Clavien Grade I postoperative complications. Immediate continence after removal of the urethral catheter was noted in 3 out of 5 patients. All the patients became continent for 2 weeks. One extraprostatic positive surgical margin was recorded. RS-RARPis an accessible technique for treating patients with localized prostate cancer, which allows achieving high early results. It is necessary to accumulate more experience of such surgeries to assess the distant outcomes and compare them with the data of the robot-assisted radical prostatectomies performed by other approaches.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Dmitry M. Ilin
City Mariinsky Hospital
Author for correspondence.
Email: robotdavinci@mail.ru
Urologist, Deputy Head of the Center for Robotic Surgery
Russian Federation, St. PetersburgBahman G. Guliev
North-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov; City Mariinsky Hospital
Email: gulievbg@mail.ru
Doctor of Medical Sciences, Professor; Head of the Center of Urology
Russian Federation, St. PetersburgReferences
- Мосоян М.С., Ильин Д.М. Раннее восстановление функции удержания мочи после робот-ассистированной радикальной простатэктомии // Трансляционная медицина. – 2017. – Т. 4. – № 6. – С. 53–61. [Mosoyan MS, Ilin DM. Early continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Translational Medicine. 2017;4(6):53-61. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2017-4-6-53-61.
- Пушкарь Д.Ю., Дьяков В.В., Васильев А.О., Котенко Д.В. Сравнение функциональных результатов после радикальной позадилонной и робот-ассистированной простатэктомий, выполненных по нервосберегающей методике хирургами с опытом более 1000 операций // Урология. – 2017. – № 1. – С. 50–53. [Pushkar DYu, Dyakov VV, Vasilyev AO, Kotenko DV. Comparison of functional outcomes after retropubic and robot-assisted radical nerve-sparing prostatectomy conducted by surgeons with total caseloads of over 1000 prostatectomies. Urologiya. 2017;(1):50-53. (In Russ.)] https://doi.org/10.18565/urol.2017.1.50-53.
- Абоян И.А., Пакус С.М., Грачев С.В., Березин К.В. Робот-ассистированная радикальная простатэктомия. Опыт первых 100 операций // Урологические ведомости. – 2015. – Т. 5. – № 1. – С. 12. [Aboyan IA, Pakus SM, Grachev SV, Berezin KV. Robot-assistirovannaya radikal’naya prostatektomiya. Opyt pervykh 100 operatsiy. Urologicheskiye vedomosti. 2015;5(1):12 (In Russ.)]
- Mattei A, Naspro R, Annino F, et al. Tension and energy-free robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with interfascial dissection of the neurovascular bundles. Eur Urol. 2007;52(3): 687-694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2007.05.029.
- Galfano A, Ascione A, Grimaldi S, et al. A new anatomic approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a feasibility study for completely intrafascial surgery. Eur Urol. 2010;58(3):457-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.06.008.
- Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983;4(5):473-485. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.2990040506.
- Kojima Y, Takahashi N, Haga N, et al. Urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: pathophysiology and intraoperative techniques to improve surgical outcome. Int J Urol. 2013;20(11):1052-1063. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju. 12214.
- Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R, et al. A Critical Analysis of the Current Knowledge of Surgical Anatomy of the Prostate Related to Optimisation of Cancer Control and Preservation of Continence and Erection in Candidates for Radical Prostatectomy: An Update. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):301-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.026.
- Steineck G, Bjartell A, Hugosson J, et al. Degree of preservation of the neurovascular bundles during radical prostatectomy and urinary continence 1 year after surgery. Eur Urol. 2015;67(3): 559-568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.011.
- Asimakopoulos AD, Mugnier C, Hoepffner JL, et al. Bladder neck preservation during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: a standardised technique using a lateral approach. BJU Int. 2012;110(10):1566-1571. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11604.x.
- Tugcu V, Akca O, Simsek A, et al. Robotic-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: A matched-pair analysis. Turk J Urol. 2019;45(4):265-272. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2019.98254.
- Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F, et al. Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with >/= 1 year of follow-up. Eur Urol. 2013;64(6):974-980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.046.
Supplementary files
