Incidental appendectomy during robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy-safe and worth to perform?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate the safety and patients' benefit of incidental appendectomy during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP). METHODS: Fifty-three patients, who had incidental appendectomy during RALRP between January 2012 and March 2014, were enrolled to this study. To evaluate the safety of the procedure, following parameters were evaluated: patient age, duration of surgery, perioperative complications (classified by Clavien-Dindo), time to bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. Furthermore, intraoperative visual appearance, location, and histopathological evaluation of the appendix were evaluated. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 61 years, the average hospital stay 5 days. No perioperative complications occurred. The appendix was unsuspicious in 39 patients (73.6%); 14 patients (26.4%) had macroscopically signs of inflammation. Of the 53 resected appendixes, the histopathological evaluation showed 33 (62.2%) inconspicuous appendices, 11 (20.8%) post-inflammatory changes, 4 (7.5%) with chronical signs of inflammation and 3 (5.7%) with signs of acute inflammation. In 2 patients (3.8%), low-grade mucinous neoplasms were found in the specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental appendectomy during RALRP is a feasible procedure. With regard to inflammation and neoplastic changes, incidental appendectomy can be considered for patients scheduled for robot-assisted prostate surgery.

A prospective randomized controlled trial for assessment of perineal hydrodissection technique for nervesparing robot assisted radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study prospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of perineal hydrodissection in robot assisted nervesparing prostatectomy. METHODS: Patients were randomized for perineal, ultrasound guided hydrodissection (HD) before radical prostatectomy and compared with standard treatment (ST). Follow-up was done every 3 months, including erectile function (IIEF5-score), reported grade of erection, ability for sexual intercourse, continence, PSA. RESULTS: 21 patients were enrolled to this prospective study, 10 for ST and 11 for HD. No significant differences in demographic and preoperative oncological data between both groups were identified. Blood loss and time for surgery did not differ significantly. HD resulted in 66% (4/6) rate of positive surgical margins (PSM) in pT3 tumors vs 50% in ST (1/2; P = 0.67). Follow-up revealed higher IIEF scores, better ability for sexual intercourse and early continence in HD. CONCLUSIONS: Erectile function after radical prostatectomy was improved by perineal hydrodissection in this proof of principal study. However, careful patient selection and further studies are needed as perineal hydrodissection could result in increased positive surgical margins in pT3a tumors.

[Navigation in urological surgery: Possibilities and limits of current techniques]. / Navigierte urologische Chirurgie : Möglichkeiten und Grenzen aktueller Technik.

Surgical navigation describes the concept of real-time processing and presentation of preoperative and intraoperative data from different sources to intraoperatively provide surgeons with additional cognitive support. Imaging methods such as 3D ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) and data from optical, electromagnetic or mechanical tracking methods are used. The resulting information of the navigation system will be presented by the means of visual methods. Mostly virtual reality or augmented reality visualization is used. There are different guidance systems for various disciplines introduced. Mostly it operates on rigid structures (bone, brain). For soft tissue navigation motion compensation and deformation detection are necessary. Therefore, marker-based tracking methods are used in several urological application examples; however, the systems are often still under development and have not yet arrived in the clinical routine.

[MRI navigated stereotactic prostate biopsy: fusion of MRI and real-time transrectal ultrasound images for perineal prostate biopsies]. / MRT-navigierte stereotaktische Prostatabiopsie : Echtzeitfusion von MRT und transrektalem Ultraschall zu perinealen Prostatastanzbiopsien.

BACKGROUND: A key challenge for prostate cancer (PC) therapy is to exactly diagnose tumor lesions. In this context we describe a new stereotactic prostate biopsy system, which integrates pre-interventional MRI with peri-interventional ultrasound for targeted perineal prostate biopsies. Furthermore, the novel system allows exact documentation of biopsies in three dimensions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Stereotactic biopsy was performed in 50 consecutive men with suspicion of PC [median age 67 years (42-77), mean PSA 8.9±6.8 ng/ml, and mean prostate volume 51±23.7 ml]. Twenty-five of these patients (50%) had already had a negative transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy. All men underwent multiparametric, contrast-enhanced 3T MRI without endorectal coil. Suspicious lesions were marked before the obtained data were transferred to a novel stereotactic biopsy system. Using a custom-made biplane TRUS probe mounted on a stepper, 3-D ultrasound data were generated and fused with the MRI. As a result, suspicious MRI lesions were superimposed onto the TRUS data. Next, 3-D biopsy planning was performed including systematic biopsies from the peripheral zone of the prostate. According to local standards patients were treated with perioperative quinolone antibiotics and applied a rectal enema the evening before the procedure. Perineal biopsies were taken under live US imaging, and the location of each biopsy was documented in an individual 3-D model. Feasibility, safety, target registration error, and cancer detection were evaluated. RESULTS: The median number of biopsies taken per patient was 24 (12-36). In 27 men of the initial cohort of 50 consecutive patients presented here, biopsy samples showed PC (54%). In patients undergoing their first biopsy, cancerous lesions were diagnosed in 13 of 19 patients (68%). The result was positive in 36% of men undergoing a re-biopsy without previous cancer diagnosis (9/25). A positive correlation between MRI findings and histopathology was found in 72%. In MRI lesions marked as highly suspicious, the tumor detection rate was 100% (13/13). Looking at single cores from highly suspicious lesions, 40 of 75 (53%) biopsies were positive. The target registration error of the first 1,159 biopsy cores was 1.7 mm. Regarding adverse effects, one patient experienced urinary retention and one patient a perineal hematoma. Urinary tract infections did not occur. CONCLUSION: Perineal stereotactic prostate biopsies guided by the combination of MRI and ultrasound allow effective examination of suspicious MRI lesions. Each biopsy core taken is documented accurately for its location in 3-D enabling MRI validation and tailored treatment planning. The morbidity of the procedure was minimal.