Does the experience of the bedside assistant effect the results of robotic surgeons in the learning curve of robot assisted radical prostatectomy?

ABSTRACT Introduction: The success of the robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) procedures depend on a successful team, however the literature focuses on the performance of a console surgeon. The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes of the surgeons during the learning curve in relation to the bedside assistant's experience level during RARP. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed two non - laparoscopic, beginner robotic surgeon's cases, and we divided the patients into two groups. The first surgeon completed the operations on 20 patients with a beginner bedside assistant in February - May 2009 (Group-1). The second surgeon completed operations on 16 patients with an experienced (at least 150 cases) bedside assistant in February 2015 - December 2015 (Group-2). The collected data included age, prostate volume, prostate specific antigen (PSA), estimated blood loss, complications and percent of positive surgical margins. In addition, the elapsed time for trocar insertion, robot docking, console surgery, specimen extraction and total anesthesia time were measured separately. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, comorbidity, prostate volume, PSA value, preoperative Gleason score, number of positive cores, postoperative Gleason score, pathological grade, protection rate of neurovascular bundles, surgical margin positivity, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, or estimated blood loss. The robot docking, trocar placement, console surgery, anesthesia and specimen extraction times were significantly shorter in group 2 than they were in group 1 (17.75 ± 3.53 min vs. 30.20 ± 7.54 min, p ≤ 0.001; 9.63 ± 2.71 min vs. 14.40 ± 4.52 min, p = 0.001; 189.06 ± 27.70 min vs. 244.95 ± 80.58 min, p = 0.01; 230.94 ± 30.83 min vs. 306.75 ± 87.96 min, p = 0.002; 10.19 ± 2.54 min vs. 17.55 ± 8.79 min, p = 0.002; respectively). Conclusion: Although the bedside assistant's experience in RARP does not appear to influence the robotic surgeon's oncological outcomes during the learning curve, it may reduce the potential complications by shortening the total operation time.

Does the experience of the bedside assistant effect the results of robotic surgeons in the learning curve of robot assisted radical prostatectomy?

INTRODUCTION: The success of the robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) procedures depend on a successful team, however the literature focuses on the performance of a console surgeon. The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical outcomes of the surgeons during the learning curve in relation to the bedside assistant's experience level during RARP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed two non - laparoscopic, beginner robotic surgeon's cases, and we divided the patients into two groups. The first surgeon completed the operations on 20 patients with a beginner bedside assistant in February - May 2009 (Group-1). The second surgeon completed operations on 16 patients with an experienced (at least 150 cases) bedside assistant in February 2015 - December 2015 (Group-2). The collected data included age, prostate volume, prostate specific antigen (PSA), estimated blood loss, complications and percent of positive surgical margins. In addition, the elapsed time for trocar insertion, robot docking, console surgery, specimen extraction and total anesthesia time were measured separately. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, co-morbidity, prostate volume, PSA value, preoperative Gleason score, number of positive cores, postoperative Gleason score, pathological grade, protection rate of neurovascular bundles, surgical margin positivity, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, or estimated blood loss. The robot docking, trocar placement, console surgery, anesthesia and specimen extraction times were significantly shorter in group 2 than they were in group 1 (17.75 ± 3.53 min vs. 30.20 ± 7.54 min, p ≤ 0.001; 9.63 ± 2.71 min vs. 14.40 ± 4.52 min , p = 0.001; 189.06 ± 27.70 min vs. 244.95 ± 80.58 min, p = 0.01; 230.94 ± 30.83 min vs. 306.75 ± 87.96 min, p = 0.002; 10.19 ± 2.54 min vs. 17.55 ± 8.79 min, p = 0.002; respectively). CONCLUSION: Although the bedside assistant's experience in RARP does not appear to influence the robotic surgeon's oncological outcomes during the learning curve, it may reduce the potential complications by shortening the total operation time.

The relationship between histological prostatitis and lower urinary tract symptoms and sexual function.

This prospective analysis assessed the effect of histological prostatitis on lower urinary tract functions and sexual function. The patients were separated into two groups as histologically observed prostatitis (Group A) and no prostatitis (Group B) according to the biopsy outcomes. International prostate symptom score, international index of erectile function-5 scores, maximal and average flow rate, and residual urine volumes were compared statistically between groups. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in baseline age (t=0.64), body mass index value (t=0.51), prostate volume (t=0.87), prostate-specific antigen levels (t=0.43), maximal (t=0.84) and average flow rate (t=0.59), and post-void residual urine volume (t=0.71). Mean international prostate symptom score in patients with prostatitis was numerically but not significantly higher than that in those without prostatitis (t=0.794, P=0.066). Mean international index of erectile function-5 score in the prostatitis group was significantly lower than that in those without prostatitis (t=1.854, P=0.013). Histological prostatitis notably affected sexual function of patients and may serve as a major risk factor for sexual dysfunction while having little effect on lower urinary tract symptoms.

The relationship between histological prostatitis and lower urinary tract symptoms and sexual function

ABSTRACT This prospective analysis assessed the effect of histological prostatitis on lower urinary tract functions and sexual function. The patients were separated into two groups as histologically observed prostatitis (Group A) and no prostatitis (Group B) according to the biopsy outcomes. International prostate symptom score, international index of erectile function-5 scores, maximal and average flow rate, and residual urine volumes were compared statistically between groups. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in baseline age (t=0.64), body mass index value (t=0.51), prostate volume (t=0.87), prostate-specific antigen levels (t=0.43), maximal (t=0.84) and average flow rate (t=0.59), and post-void residual urine volume (t=0.71). Mean international prostate symptom score in patients with prostatitis was numerically but not significantly higher than that in those without prostatitis (t=0.794, P=0.066). Mean international index of erectile function-5 score in the prostatitis group was significantly lower than that in those without prostatitis (t=1.854, P=0.013). Histological prostatitis notably affected sexual function of patients and may serve as a major risk factor for sexual dysfunction while having little effect on lower urinary tract symptoms.

Can pain during digital rectal examination help us to decide the necessity and the method of anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy?

OBJECTIVE: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy is well tolerated by patients but the lack of an effective marker to predict pain prevents us from determining pre-procedurally which patient group needs local anesthesia for biopsy and probe pain. Thus in this study, we investigated predictor factors for prostate biopsy and probe insertion pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 71 patients who were undergoing prostate biopsy without anesthesia were included in the study retrospectively. Pain had been assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS 0-10). Digital rectal examination (DRE) pain was analyzed for biopsy and probe insertion pain. RESULTS: DRE pain was related to both probe pain and biopsy pain. CONCLUSION: Although level of pain during DRE determines patients in need of local anesthesia, since the number of patients with moderate-severe pain is rather big, it seems efficient in determining the patients in need of additional anesthesia due to probe pain.

Can pain during digital rectal examination help us to decide the necessity and the method of anesthesia for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate needle biopsy?

OBJECTIVE: Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided prostate biopsy is well tolerated by patients but the lack of an effective marker to predict pain prevents us from determining pre-procedurally which patient group needs local anesthesia for biopsy and probe pain. Thus in this study, we investigated predictor factors for prostate biopsy and probe insertion pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 71 patients who were undergoing prostate biopsy without anesthesia were included in the study retrospectively. Pain had been assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS 0-10). Digital rectal examination (DRE) pain was analyzed for biopsy and probe insertion pain. RESULTS: DRE pain was related to both probe pain and biopsy pain. CONCLUSION: Although level of pain during DRE determines patients in need of local anesthesia, since the number of patients with moderate-severe pain is rather big, it seems efficient in determining the patients in need of additional anesthesia due to probe pain.