The impact of robotics on treatment of localized prostate cancer and resident education in Rochester, New York.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has been performed in Rochester, NY, since 2003. Currently, 10 area urologists perform RARP, and robotic training has become an important component of the residency. We present data describing the timeline for adoption, both in clinical practice and in the residency program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the operating logs for all surgeons who were performing prostatectomies in all hospitals in Rochester, NY, from 2003 to 2007. We examined the influence RARP had on other treatments, including brachytherapy and cryotherapy. Surgical logs of graduating chief residents were also reviewed. RESULTS: Eleven surgeons in Rochester regularly perform radical prostatectomy (10 perform primarily RARP, one performs only open prostatectomy). Three of the city's four hospitals have robotic systems. In 2003-2004, there were 30 open prostatectomies performed monthly and fewer than 10 performed robotically. By 2006, the trend was reversed, with 50 robot-assisted prostatectomies performed each month and fewer than 10 open prostatectomies (P<0.05). The rate of brachytherapy fluctuated, increasing in centers without a robot. The number of open prostatectomies in centers without a robot dropped significantly to fewer than 10 cases per year. There was also a significant decrease in the number of open prostatectomies performed by chief residents. CONCLUSIONS: Since the introduction of surgical robotics, significant changes have been seen. The volume of radical prostatectomies performed by surgeons at institutions with robotics has increased; the volume at robot-free institutions has become nominal. There is a trend toward increased radiation therapy at robot-free institutions. While radical prostatectomies logged by graduating chief residents have increased, open prostatectomy experience is now minimal.

Transition from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy is associated with a reduction of positive surgical margins amongst private-practice-based urologists.

Several recent studies have suggested that thought leaders in radical prostatectomy have decreased their own positive margin rates by switching from open to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Theoretically, this improvement is largely attributed to enhanced visualization of the deep pelvis and precision of dissection afforded by the instrumentation. To date, it has not been determined if this phenomenon exists amongst non-fellowship-trained urologists in private practice. Herein, we describe the positive margin rates of two non-fellowship-trained private-practice urologists who converted from open radical retropubic prostatectomy to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. The margin positivity data from two non-fellowship-trained private-practice urologists (surgeon 1 and surgeon 2) were reviewed retrospectively. The last 50 cases of open radical retropubic prostatectomy from each surgeon were compared with the first 50 robotic prostatectomy cases of surgeons 1 and 2, respectively. A positive surgical margin was defined as tumor present at the inked margin of the prostate. There was a significant decrease in the overall and pT2 positive margin rates for both surgeons. The overall positive margin rate and pT2 positive margin rate for surgeon 1 dropped from 44 to 20% and from 37 to 5.7%, respectively, after changing from open to robotic prostatectomy. For surgeon 2, the overall positive margin rate changed from 26 to 18% and the pT2 positive margin rate changed from 27.5 to 7% after converting. Changing from open to robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy may improve the ability of urologists to obtain negative surgical margins. With proper training this phenomenon does seem to apply to non-fellowship-trained urologists in private practice and can be realized within the first 50 cases performed.

The use of robotically assisted surgery for treating urachal anomalies.

OBJECTIVE: To report the management of urachal anomalies using a robotically assisted approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 2005 and February 2006, five patients (mean age 51 years, range 24-68) were diagnosed with urachal anomalies. Two basic robot-assisted surgical approaches were used for excising the urachal anomalies: excision of the urachal remnant via partial cystectomy, and radical cystectomy for excision of urachal adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: All five cases were successful and the excised specimens were assessed histologically. The short-term oncological outcome in the three patients with histologically confirmed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma showed no evidence of recurrent disease within a median interval of 8 months. Surveillance follow-up cystoscopy in the patients who had a partial cystectomy showed a well-healed bladder mucosa with no evidence of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Radical excision of the urachal tract with partial cystectomy or radical cystectomy using the da Vinci robot is safe, effective and technically feasible.

Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Robotic-assisted surgery using the da Vinci Surgical System is gaining popularity among urologists. However, training residents to use this system presents new challenges for surgical educators. We describe a method for training residents to perform robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Residents first received da Vinci certification training followed by table-side assistance with a second attending urologist present to provide real-time instruction. After demonstrating proficiency with assistance, residents performed segments of robotic prostatectomies as the console surgeon. The procedure was divided into five steps: (a) bladder take-down, (b) endopelvic fascia and dorsal venous complex, (c) bladder neck and posterior dissection, (d) neurovascular bundles, and (e) urethral anastomosis. Performance was rated using an analog scale (0, very poor to 5, outstanding). The resident was allowed to proceed to the next step once proficiency (score greater than 3 of 5) had been demonstrated on three separate occasions. In addition, each procedure was digitally recorded and reviewed with the attending physician after the operation. RESULTS: Two chief residents underwent this training regimen. All 83 cases with surgical console involvement during a 7-month period were reviewed. The combined residents' mean operative time in minutes and overall performance (score 0 of 5 to 5 of 5) for each step were recorded. Using logistic regression analysis, a statistically significant trend was seen, with faster operative times and greater analog scores over time for both residents (P <0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach can be used to safely and effectively train urology residents to perform robotic radical prostatectomy using the da Vinci robotic system.