Recommendations on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a Brazilian experts' consensus.

Radical prostatectomy is a commonly adopted treatment for localized/locally advanced prostate cancer in men with a life expectancy of ten years or more. Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is comparable to open radical prostatectomy on cancer control and complication rates; however, new evidence suggests that RARP may have better functional outcomes, especially with respect to urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Some of the surgical steps of RARP are not adequately described in published literature and, as such, may have an impact on the final outcomes of the procedure. We organized a Brazilian experts' panel to evaluate best practices in RARP. The confection of the recommendations broadly involved: selection of the experts; establishment of working groups; systematic review of the literature and elaboration of a questionnaire; and construction of the final text with the approval of all participants. The participants reviewed the publications in English from December 2019 to February 2020. A one-round Delphi technique was employed in 188 questions. Five reviewers worked on the final recommendations using consensual and non-consensual questions. We found 59.9% of questions with greater than 70% agreement that were considered consensual. Non-consensual questions were reported according to the responses. The recommendations were based on evidence-based literature and individual perceptions adapted to the Brazilian reality, although some issues remain controversial. We believe that these recommendations may help urologists involved in RARP and hope that future discussions on this surgical procedure may evolve over the ensuing years.

Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) is an important gap of the literature related to the surgical treatment of the clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). AIM: To provide the first prospective randomized comparison on the functional and oncological outcomes of LRP and RALRP for the treatment of the clinically localized PCa. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2008, 128 consecutive male patients were randomized in two groups and treated by a single experienced surgeon with traditional LRP (Group I-64 patients) or RALRP (Group II-64 patients) in all cases with intent of bilateral intrafascial nerve sparing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end point was to compare the 12 months erectile function (EF) outcomes. Complication rates, continence outcomes, and oncological results were also compared. The sample size of our study was able, with an adequate power (1-beta > 0.90), to recognize as significant large differences (above 0.30) between incidence proportions of considered outcomes. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were observed for operating time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, rates of positive surgical margins, rates of biochemical recurrence, continence, and time to continence. However, the 12-month evaluation of capability for intercourse (with or without phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors) showed a clear and significant advantage of RALRP (32% vs. 77%, P < 0.0001). Time to capability for intercourse was significantly shorter for RALRP. Rates of return to baseline International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-6) EF domain score questionnaires (questions 1-5 and 15) (25% vs. 58%) and to IIEF-6 > 17 (38% vs. 63%) were also significantly higher for RALRP (P = 0.0002 and P = 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers the first high-level evidence that RALRP provides significantly better EF recovery than LRP without hindering the oncologic radicality of the procedure. Larger RCTs are needed to confirm if a new gold-standard treatment in the field of RP has risen.