Effect of Bladder Neck Preservation and Posterior Urethral Reconstruction during Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Urinary Continence

PURPOSE: To report our results on urinary continence after bladder neck preservation (BNP) and posterior urethral reconstruction (PUR) during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 107 patients who underwent RALP were compared on the basis of whether the patients underwent BNP and PUR, BNP only, or the standard technique (ST). In group A (n=31 patients), ST was performed by using Ven velthoven continuous suturing for urethrovesical anastomosis. In group B (n=28 patients), ST with only PUR was performed. In group C (n=48 patients), both the BNP and PUR techniques were used. "Recovery of continence" was defined as the use of 1 pad (50 ml) or less within 24 hours. RESULTS: The three groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics. The mean operative time and the mean blood loss decreased significantly from group A to group C (p=0.021 for mean operative time and p=0.004 for the mean blood loss). Mean catheterization time was 8.9, 7.8, and 7.1 days in each group (p=0.047). Early return of urinary continence at 3 months was observed in group B (89.2%) and group C (90.6%) compared with group A (71%). However, continence at 6 months was comparable in the 3 groups (87.5% in group A, 92.8% in group B, and 92.3% in group C). Rates of positive surgical margins decreased from 30.2% in group A to 20% in group B and 12% in group C. CONCLUSIONS: BNP and PUR during RALP showed a favorable impact on the early postoperative recovery of continence while not affecting positive surgical margins.

Addendum: Assessment of the Laparoscopic Training Validity of a Virtual Reality Simulator (LAP Mentor(TM))

No abstract available.

Assessment of the Laparoscopic Training Validity of a Virtual Reality Simulator (LAP Mentor(TM))

PURPOSE: The need for efficient and optimal training through a structured laparoscopic training program has become increasingly evident. Virtual reality simulation may provide a safe and efficient means of acquiring laparoscopic skills. The LAP Mentor(TM) is a high-fidelity virtual reality simulator with haptic feedback that allows a trainee to practice 9 basic laparoscopic tasks including laparoscopic suturing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive validity of performance on the LAP Mentor before surgical simulators are incorporated into training programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eleven participants (6 medical students and 5 residents) underwent laparoscopic skills training on the virtual reality simulator LAP Mentor. Each participant was tested on 5 sets of 4 LAP Mentor basic laparoscopic tasks (grasping, cutting, clipping, and suturing) in a 3-week period. Total time and accuracy were measured for each task. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the initial session and the final session for total time and accuracy in both groups. Among the medical students, as they progressed through the training step by step, total time decreased for the grasping task, the cutting task, the clipping task, and the suturing task. At the same time, accuracy improved for the grasping task, the cutting task, the clipping task, and the suturing task, respectively. The residents group showed a similar progression. CONCLUSIONS: Basic skills straining on a LAP Mentor virtual reality simulator improves learning of the basic skills for laparoscopy. Education with virtual reality simulators, therefore, may provide an effective teaching method and lead to improved operating performance.

Effect of Posterior Urethral Reconstruction (PUR) in Early Recovery of Urinary Continence after Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE: Prolonged urinary incontinence is one of the greatest concerns for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. One of the possible causes for this urinary incontinence is a postoperative deficiency of the external striated urethral sphincter (EUS) complex and continence nerves. We evaluated the effect of posterior urethral reconstruction (PUR) in the early recovery of urinary continence after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2008 and March 2009 we performed robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with PUR in 30 patients (PUR group) and without PUR in 30 patients (non-PUR group). We compared perioperative parameters and postoperative continence rates between the two groups. Continence was defined as no pads or one diaper per 24 hours and was assessed 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure. RESULTS: Patients in the PUR group achieved better continence rates at 1 month (43% vs. 35%) and 3 months of follow-up (89% vs. 64%). At 6 months of follow-up, the continence rate was similar between the two groups (96% vs. 90%). No major complications were observed in the PUR group. However, 2 cases of anastomotic site leakage and 1 case of delayed bleeding were observed in the non-PUR group. CONCLUSIONS: Posterior urethral reconstruction appears to be an easy and reproducible technique in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Our early experience demonstrates that PUR in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy appears to confer early continence recovery and reduce intraoperative complications.