"Single-Surgeon" versus "Dual-Surgeon" Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Pelvic Lymph-nodes Dissection: Comparative Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes

ABSTRACT Purpose: To compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with pelvic lymph-nodes dissection (PLND) when the same surgeon performs RARP and PLND versus one surgeon performs RARP and another surgeon performs PLND. Materials and Methods: From January 2022 to March 2023, data of consecutive patients who underwent RARP with PLND were prospectively collected. The surgeries were performed by two "young" surgeons with detailed profile. Specifically for the study purpose, one surgeon performed RARP, and the other surgeon performed PLND. A set of surgeries performed according to the standard setup (i.e., the same surgeon performing both RARP and PLND) was retrieved from the institutional database and used as comparator arm. To test the study hypothesis, patients were divided into two groups: "dual-surgeon" versus "single-surgeon". Results: Fifty patients underwent RARP and PLND performed according to dual-surgeon setup and were compared to the last 50 procedures performed according to the standard single-surgeon setup. Patients in the groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Dual-surgeon interventions had significantly shorter median total operative (194 [IQR 178-215] versus 174 [IQR 146-195] minutes, p<0.001) and console time (173 [IQR 158-194] versus 154 [IQR 129-170] minutes, p<0.001). No significant differences were found in terms of blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative outcomes, and final pathology results. Conclusions: The present analysis found that when RARP and PLND are split onto two surgeons, the operative time is shorter by 20 minutes compared to when a single surgeon performs RARP and PLND. This is an interesting finding that could sponsor further studies.

Thulium laser enucleation of prostate versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy in the treatment of large benign prostatic hyperplasia: head-to-head comparison

ABSTRACT Objectives: To compare thulium laser enucleation of prostate (ThuLEP) versus laparoscopic trans-vesical simple prostatectomy (LSP) in the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Materials and Methods: Data of patients who underwent surgery for "large" BPH (>80mL) at three Institutions were collected and analyzed. Two institutions performed ThuLEP only; the third institution performed LSP only. Preoperative (indwelling catheter status, prostate volume (PVol), hemoglobin (Hb), Qmax, post-voiding residual volume (PVR), IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5) and perioperative data (operative time, enucleated adenoma, catheterization time, length of stay, Hb-drop, complications) were compared. Functional (Qmax, PVR, %ΔQmax) and patient-reported outcomes (IPSS, QoL, IIEF-5, %ΔIPSS, %ΔQoL) were compared at last follow-up. Results: 80 and 115 patients underwent LSP and ThuLEP, respectively. At baseline, median PVol was 130 versus 120mL, p <0.001; Qmax 9.6 vs. 7.1mL/s, p=0.005; IPSS 21 versus 25, p <0.001. Groups were comparable in terms of intraoperative complications (1 during LSP vs. 3 during ThuLEP) and transfusions (1 per group). Differences in terms of operative time (156 vs. 92 minutes, p <0.001), Hb-drop (-2.5 vs. −0.9g/dL, p <0.001), catheterization time (5 vs. 2 days, p <0.001) and postoperative complications (13.8% vs. 0, p <0.001) favored ThuLEP. At median follow-up of 40 months after LSP versus 30 after ThuLEP (p <0.001), Qmax improved by 226% vs. 205% (p=0.5), IPSS decreased by 88% versus 85% (p=0.9), QoL decreased by 80% with IIEF-5 remaining almost unmodified for both the approaches. Conclusions: Our analysis showed that LSP and ThuLEP are comparable in relieving from BPO and improving the patient-reported outcomes. Invasiveness of LSP is more significant.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a review

INTRODUCTION: We offer an overview of the intra-, peri- and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with the endpoint to evaluate potential advantages of this approach. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted an extensive Medline literature search (search terms “laparoscopic radical prostatectomy” and “radical prostatectomy”) from 1990 until 2007. Only full-length English language articles identified during this search were considered for this analysis. A preference was given to the articles with large series with more than 100 patients. All pertinent articles concerning localized prostate cancer were reviewed. CONCLUSION:Pure LRP has shown to be feasible and reproducible but it is difficult to learn. Potential advantages over open surgery have to be confirmed by longer-term follow-up and adequately designed clinical studies.