Development, validation and operating room-transfer of a six-step laparoscopic training program for the vesicourethral anastomosis.

PURPOSE: Development and full validation of a laparoscopic training program for stepwise learning of a reproducible application of a standardized laparoscopic anastomosis technique and integration into the clinical course. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The training of vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA) was divided into six simple standardized steps. To fix the objective criteria, four experienced surgeons performed the stepwise training protocol. Thirty-eight participants with no previous laparoscopic experience were investigated in their training performance. The times needed to manage each training step and the total training time were recorded. The integration into the clinical course was investigated. The training results and the corresponding steps during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) were analyzed. Data analysis of corresponding operating room (OR) sections of 793 LRP was performed. Based on the validity, criteria were determined. RESULTS: In the laboratory section, a significant reduction of OR time for every step was seen in all participants. Coordination: 62%; longitudinal incision: 52%; inverted U-shape incision: 43%; plexus: 47%. Anastomosis catheter model: 38%. VUA: 38%. The laboratory section required a total time of 29 hours (minimum: 16 hours; maximum: 42 hours). All participants had shorter execution times in the laboratory than under real conditions. The best match was found within the VUA model. To perform an anastomosis under real conditions, 25% more time was needed. By using the training protocol, the performance of the VUA is comparable to that of an surgeon with experience of about 50 laparoscopic VUA. Data analysis proved content, construct, and prognostic validity. CONCLUSIONS: The use of stepwise training approaches enables a surgeon to learn and reproduce complex reconstructive surgical tasks: eg, the VUA in a safe environment. The validity of the designed system is given at all levels and should be used as a standard in the clinical surgical training in laparoscopic reconstructive urology.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: oncological results in the first 500 patients.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become an accepted alternative to open surgery. However, there is still a lack of data concerning the oncological outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From March 1999 to July 2004, 1,078 patients underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution. Oncological results in the first 500 patients with a minimal followup of 23 months were analyzed, focusing on positive margins, prostate specific antigen (PSA) failure, clinical progression and survival. RESULTS: Median followup was 40 months (range 23 to 65). Of the patients 417 underwent pelvic lymph node dissection, which revealed positive nodes in 6 (1.2%). Positive margins were documented in 22 of 296 pT2 tumors (7.4%), 27 of 107 pT3a tumors (25.2%) and 29 of 69 pT3b tumors (42.0%). PSA recurrence was diagnosed in 55 patients (11.0%) at a mean of 20.8 months (range 6 to 36) that is stages pT2a, pT2b, pT3a and pT3b/4 in 3.2%, 6.5%, 15.9% and 23.9%, respectively. PSA progression-free rates were 83.0% at 3 years and 73.1% at 5 years. Two patients died of disease and 6 died of other causes (99.2% overall survival). The clinical progression rate was to 4.1% at 3 years and 9.8% at 5 years. No port site metastasis was observed. CONCLUSIONS: At centers of expertise laparoscopic radical prostatectomy may provide an oncological outcome similar to that of the open procedure. However, it offers the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

Comparison of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using match-pair analysis.

PURPOSE: Based on the experience of 1000 cases of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, we compared the operative parameters of transperitoneal and extraperitoneal approaches in match-paired patient groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 53 consecutive patients who underwent selectively extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy comparing it to 53 match-paired patients treated by transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The patients were matched for age, PSA (ng/ml), prostate volume (g), pathologic stage, Gleason score, presence of pelvic lymph node dissection and type of nerve-sparing technique. Perioperative parameters (operating time, blood donation, complications) and postoperative results (duration and amount of analgesic treatment, catheterization time) as well as oncological (surgical margin status) and functional (continence rate) results were analyzed. RESULTS: Patients were 62.9 +/- 5.5 versus 62.9 +/- 5.4 years old, had 27.5 +/- 3.5 kg/m2 versus 26.7 +/- 2.8 kg/m2 body mass indices in the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal groups, respectively. Preoperative mean PSA and prostate volume were 7.4 +/- 4.6 ng/ml and 41.8 +/- 16.3 g in the extraperitoneal, 7.6 +/- 3.8 ng/ml and 42.0 +/- 14.8 g in the transperitoneal group. Pathologic stages were T2a in 12 vs. 13, T2b in 21 vs. 20, T2c in 7 vs. 8, T3a in 11 vs. 10 and T3b in 2 vs. 2 patients for both groups. Overall 211.8 vs. 197.1 minutes mean operative time (p = 0.328) and 21.9 +/- 15.4 mg vs. 26.3 +/- 15.8 mg narcotic analgesic requirements (p = 0.111) did not differ significantly in both groups. However, mean operating time was significantly longer in the extraperitoneal group when performing pelvic lymphadenectomy (244.5 vs. 209.6 minutes, p = 0.017). There was no statistical difference of complication rate (4% vs. 2%) and median catheter time (7 vs. 7 days), positive surgical margins (22.6% vs. 20.7%) and 12 months continence (86.7% vs. 84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between the extraperitoneal and transperitoneal approaches using the Heilbronn technique regarding all important parameters. In addition to the preference and experience of the individual surgeon, previous abdominal surgery, gross obesity and requirement of simultaneous inguinal hernia repair may be considered as selective indications for extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: functional and oncological outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become an accepted alternative to open surgery, however data on the functional and oncological outcome are still lacking. In this study we present an analysis based on a survey of the current literature and the first 500 patients treated with the Heilbronn technique. Additionally, we compare the results of laparoscopy with those of open radical prostatectomy. RECENT FINDINGS: We conducted an extensive MEDLINE search of laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy from 1999 through 2003, focusing on the last 3 years. The articles as well as our own results were analyzed with respect to continence, potency, positive margins, prostatic specific antigen failure, and clinical progression. No significant differences were found between the laparoscopic and open approach with respect to overall continence at 12 months (60-94% versus 61-98%) or at 3 months (51-63% versus 62-69%), varying from 4.1% at pT2, 12% at pT3 to 19% at pT4 stages. We found no significant differences between the two techniques in the recovery of potency (34-67% versus 31-79%), if one excludes the selected series of Walsh with a mean age of 57 years. Furthermore, we did not detect any significant differences in positive margins and short-term prostatic specific antigen recurrence (3 years). SUMMARY: At centers of expertise, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is able to provide similar functional and oncological results as its open counterpart, however with the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

Technical evolution of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy after 450 cases.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In 1998, laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with primary access to the seminal vesicles was introduced. In 1999, we developed a laparoscopic technique similar to the classic retropubic radical prostatectomy. We focus here on the continuous technical evolution of our technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 1999 to May 2002, we performed 450 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. All important data of the patients; data concerning the performance of the procedure, including technical modifications, conversion, reintervention, and complication rate; as well as follow-up information were documented contemporaneously. The patients were divided into three groups of 150 individuals each in order to analyze the influence of the technical evolution of the procedure. Additionally, we studied the transferability of our technique, comparing the learning curves of the three surgeons involved in the program. RESULTS: The technical modifications included the routine use of a voice-controlled robot (AESOP) for the camera, exposure of the apex with 120 degrees retracting forceps, a free-hand suturing technique instead of the Endostitch device for the dorsal vein complex, 5-mm clipping instead of bipolar coagulation for the nerve-sparing technique, initial 6 o'clock suturing of the urethra before complete division, control of the prostatic pedicles by use of 12-mm Hemo-lok clips instead of the Ultracision or Endo-GIA, the bladder neck-sparing technique in cases of T(1c) and T(2a) tumors, and interrupted instead of continuous sutures for the vesicourethral anastomosis. All these modifications resulted in a significant decrease in operating time and the rates of transfusion, open conversion, and reintervention. The introduction of the nerve-sparing technique increased the number of tumor-positive margins. The mean operating time of the third surgeon was significantly less than that of the first surgeon, but the transfusion, conversion, and reintervention rates did not differ significantly among the surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has undergone continuous technical evolution resulting in a significant improvement of the operative results. Although we were able to demonstrate the transferability of this difficult procedure, we feel that it should be performed only at centers of expertise.

Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.

PURPOSE: There is an ongoing debate about the benefits of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy compared to the open retropubic approach. We compared the last 219 patients treated with open retropubic prostatectomy with 438 patients treated with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution, focusing on operative data, complications and mid-term outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 1994 to November 1999 a total of 219 patients were treated with open prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection (group 1). From March 1999 to September 2002, 219 patients underwent early (group 2) and 219 underwent late (group 3) laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. The same surgeons performed both operations. All 3 groups were similar with respect to mean patient age, mean prostate specific antigen value, median Gleason score, previous transurethral resection of the prostate and neoadjuvant treatment, although there was a slight stage shift in favor of the 2 laparoscopic groups. RESULTS: Mean operating time was significantly shorter after open surgery (196 minutes) compared to the early laparoscopic group (288) but it did not differ significantly from the late laparoscopic group (218). Mean blood loss (1,550 versus 1,100 versus 800 cc) and transfusion rates (55.7% versus 30.1% versus 9.6%) in groups 1 to 3 favored the laparoscopic groups. The complication rate in groups 1 to 3 was lower for laparoscopy (19.2% versus 13.7% versus 6.4%), but the spectrum differed. The early laparoscopic group had a higher incidence of rectal injuries (1.8% versus 3.2% versus 1.4% in groups 1 to 3, respectively) and urinary leakage (0.5% versus 2.3% versus 0.9%), whereas more lymphoceles (6.9% versus 0% versus 0%), wound infection (2.3% versus 0.5% versus 0%), embolism/pneumonia (2.3% versus 0.5% versus 0.5%) and anastomotic strictures (15.9% versus 6.4% versus 4.1%) occurred after open surgery. The amount of postoperative analgesia was significantly greater after open surgery (50.8 versus 33.8 versus 30.1 mg. in groups 1 to 3, respectively). Median catheter time was longer after open retropubic prostatectomy (12 versus 7 versus 7 days in groups 1 to 3, respectively) but the continence rates were similar in all 3 groups at 12 months (89.9% versus 90.3% versus 91.7%). The rate of positive margins did not differ significantly in groups 1 to 3 (28.2% versus 21.0% versus 23.2%), prostate specific antigen recurrence was equivalent related to the different observation periods. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is technically demanding, with an initially longer operative time, higher incidence of rectal injuries and urinary leakage. The overall outcome after 219 cases favors the laparoscopic approach. Consequently, at our institution laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has become the method of choice.