Extraperitoneal single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: initial experience and description of technique.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our technique of extraperitoneal single-port (SP) robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and present our clinical experience with the first 10 cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 10 consecutive patients diagnosed with localised prostate cancer underwent extraperitoneal SP-RARP using the da Vinci SP® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Exclusion criteria included previous surgery through an infra-umbilical midline incision, prostate size >100 g, or preoperative evidence of extraprostatic disease. All surgeries were performed by a single surgeon with previous experience of >3000 cases in robotic surgery. Demographics and perioperative information were collected including: operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), complications, length of stay, and days with Foley catheter. The extraperitoneal SP-RARP is performed as follows. Firstly, a 3-cm incision ~2 cm below the umbilicus is made. Dissection of the extraperitoneal space is achieved using a kidney shaped Spacemaker™ balloon (Covidien, Dublin, Ireland), placed through the infra-umbilical incision caudally reaching the retropubic space. Thereafter, the balloon is deployed; the space is created and verified under direct vision with a laparoscopic endoscope. A GelPOINT® mini advanced access platform (Applied Medical, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, USA) is inserted and a dedicated 25-mm multichannel port is placed with a 12-mm accessory laparoscopic port through the gel-seal cap into the same incision. The da Vinci SP surgical platform robot is docked with the patient in a supine position. RARP is performed replicating the technique previously described for multi-arm platforms or transperitoneal SP-RARP. No drain and no additional assistant ports were utilised. RESULTS: The patient's ages ranged between 48 and 70 years, and the mean preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level was 9 ng/mL. No conversions or intraoperative complications were recorded. The median (interquartile range) operative time was 197.5 (185.5-229.7) min. EBL ranged between 50 and 400 mL, six patients were discharged on the same day as the surgery and the median time with a Foley catheter after surgery was 8 days. CONCLUSIONS: Extraperitoneal SP-RARP is a feasible and safe surgical option to treat localised prostate cancer. In our early experience, promising results and possible advantages were found such as: a small single incision, no additional ports, no Trendelenburg positioning, minimal postoperative pain and use of opioids, and same day discharge. Further investigations need to be done to validate these advantages.

Management of patients who opt for radical prostatectomy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: an international accelerated consensus statement.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic caused delays in definitive treatment of patients with prostate cancer. Beyond the immediate delay a backlog for future patients is expected. The objective of this work is to develop guidance on criteria for prioritisation of surgery and reconfiguring management pathways for patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer who opt for surgical treatment. A second aim was to identify the infection prevention and control (IPC) measures to achieve a low likelihood of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hazard if radical prostatectomy (RP) was to be carried out during the outbreak and whilst the disease is endemic. METHODS: We conducted an accelerated consensus process and systematic review of the evidence on COVID-19 and reviewed international guidance on prostate cancer. These were presented to an international prostate cancer expert panel (n = 34) through an online meeting. The consensus process underwent three rounds of survey in total. Additions to the second- and third-round surveys were formulated based on the answers and comments from the previous rounds. The Consensus opinion was defined as ≥80% agreement and this was used to reconfigure the prostate cancer pathways. RESULTS: Evidence on the delayed management of patients with prostate cancer is scarce. There was 100% agreement that prostate cancer pathways should be reconfigured and measures developed to prevent nosocomial COVID-19 for patients treated surgically. Consensus was reached on prioritisation criteria of patients for surgery and management pathways for those who have delayed treatment. IPC measures to achieve a low likelihood of nosocomial COVID-19 were coined as 'COVID-19 cold' sites. CONCLUSION: Reconfiguring management pathways for patients with prostate cancer is recommended if significant delay (>3-6 months) in surgical management is unavoidable. The mapped pathways provide guidance for such patients. The IPC processes proposed provide a framework for providing RP within an environment with low COVID-19 risk during the outbreak or when the disease remains endemic. The broader concepts could be adapted to other indications beyond prostate cancer surgery.