Da Vinci SP radical prostatectomy: a multicentric collaboration and step-by-step techniques

ABSTRACT Introduction Several techniques of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the da Vinci SP (SP) have been described since its clearance by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in 2018 ( 1 , 2 ). Even with the expanding literature about this robot, the SP technology has been restricted to a few centers in the US and Asia due to the recent release of this robot in the marked.3 In this scenario, we provided, in this video compilation, a consensus of SP referral centers describing the current approaches and techniques of da Vinci SP Radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP). Surgical Technique We have illustrated five different techniques, including transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, Retzius-sparing, transvesical, and transperineal ( 4 - 6 ). Each surgery demonstrated crucial steps from the trocar placement until anastomosis. All approaches follow anatomic concepts and landmarks to minimize positive surgical margins, optimize oncological outcomes and promote optimal functional recovery. The trocar placement and the use of an assistant port were selected according to the operative technique of each institution. None of these surgeries had intra- or postoperative complications, and the pain management until discharge was controlled without using narcotics. All patients were discharged in less than 16 hours of surgery. Conclusion Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy performed with the da Vinci SP is feasible and safe with optimal perioperative outcomes. Five different approaches were described in this video compilation, and we believe that the technical details provided by this multicentric collaboration are crucial for centers willing to initiate the SP approach to radical prostatectomy.

Contemporary techniques of da Vinci SP radical prostatectomy: multicentric collaboration and expert opinion

ABSTRACT Background The da Vinci SP robot consists of an innovative single port trocar that houses a flexible camera and three biarticulated arms, which minimizes the number of incisions to assess the surgical site, allowing a less invasive procedure. However, due to its recent release in the market, the current literature reporting SP-RARP is still restricted to a few centers. In this scenario, after performing a literature search with all available techniques of SP-RARP, our objective is to report a multicentric opinion of referral centers on different techniques to approach SP-RARP. Results The SP literature is provided by only a few centers due to the limited number of this new console in the market. Five different approaches are available: transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, Retzius-Sparing, transperineal and transvesical. None of the current studies describe long-term functional or oncological outcomes. However, all approaches had satisfactory operative performance with minimum complication rates. Conclusions Several techniques of SP-RARP have been reported in the literature. We performed a multicentric collaboration describing and illustrating the most challenging steps of this surgery. We believe that the details provided in this article are useful teaching material for new centers willing to adopt the SP technology.

Mixed incontinence: does preoperative urodynamic detrusor overactivity affect postoperative quality of life after pubovaginal sling?

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine if women with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) and urodynamic detrusor overactivity (DO) have less improvement in urinary symptoms after pubovaginal sling surgery (PVS), compared to MUI without DO. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women with preoperative MUI symptoms prior to PVS were identified through retrospective review. DO was defined as a symptomatic 5 cm H20 detrusor pressure or greater rise during urodynamics. MUI patients with and without DO before PVS were divided into Groups A and B, respectively. All patients had returned a completed Urogenital Distress Inventory 6 (UDI-6) questionnaire and a 3-day diary of pad usage before surgery and at each postoperative visit. Study endpoints included change in total UDI-6 score, and change in number of pad use/day after PVS. RESULTS: 73 patients were identified, 31 in Group A and 42 in Group B. Mean follow-up after PVS was 15 and 16 months, respectively (p = 0.59). Preoperative total UDI-6 scores were 11.8 and 12.7 (p = 0.30) for Group A and B. Mean changes in total UDI-6 after PVS were - 8.0 and - 10.2 (p = 0.030), respectively. After PVS, both groups reported similar mean reduction in pad/day usage from preoperative baseline (-2.57 vs. --2.49, p = 0.83). There were no differences between the groups when comparing demographic, urodynamic, or operative data. CONCLUSION: MUI patients had improved continence and quality of life after PVS. However, MUI patients with DO had less improvement in UDI-6 scores after PVS, despite a similar reduction to pad use/day.