Open Radical Prostatectomy Reproducing Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Involving Antegrade Nerve Sparing and Continuous Anastomosis

Overview

Journal Int Braz J Urol

Specialty Urology

Date 2017 Oct 18

PMID 29039893

Citations 3

Authors

Se Yun Kwon

Jun Nyung Lee

Yun-Sok Ha

Seock Hwan Choi

Tae-Hwan Kim

Tae Gyun Kwon

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To present modified RRP using the same method as RALP and compare its surgical outcomes with RALP.

Materials And Methods: Demographics, perioperative and functional outcomes of the 322 patients that underwent RRP (N=99) or RALP (N=223) at our institution from January 2011 through June 2013 were evaluated retrospectively. Postoperative incontinence and erectile dysfunction are involved functional outcomes. During the modified procedure, the bladder neck was dissected first as for RALP. After dissection of vas deference and seminal vesicle, the prostate was dissected in an antegrade fashion with bilateral nerve saving. Finally, the urethra was cut at the prostate apex. After a Rocco suture was applied, and then urethrovesical anastomosis was performed with continuous suture as for RALP.

Results: Perioperative characteristics and complication rates were similar in the RRP and RALP groups except for mean estimated blood loss (p<0.001) and operative time (p<0.001). Incontinence rates at 3 and 12 months after RRP decreased from 67.6% to 10.1 and after RALP decreased from 53.4% to 5.4%. Positive surgical margin rates were non-significantly different in the RRP and RALP groups (30.3% and 37.2%, respectively). Overall postoperative potency rate at 12 months was not significant different in RRP and RALP groups (34.3% and 43.0%).

Conclusions: RRP reproducing RALP was found to have surgical outcomes comparable to RALP. This technique might be adopted by experienced urologic surgeons as a standard procedure.

Citing Articles

The assessment of erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy using pudendal somatosensory evoked potential.

Kwon S, Park J PLoS One. 2023; 18(11):e0292847.

PMID: 38019800 PMC: 10686421. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292847.

Ultrapreservation in Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Provides Early Continence Recovery.

Kucuk E, Sobay R, Tahra A JSLS. 2023; 27(1).

PMID: 37009064 PMC: 10065757. DOI: 10.4293/JSLS.2022.00077.

Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique.

Carrerette F, Rodeiro D, Filho R, Santos P, Lara C, Damiao R Asian J Urol. 2023; 10(2):151-157.

PMID: 36942119 PMC: 10023527. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajur.2021.11.008.

References

Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, DElia C, Secco S, Iafrate M . A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009; 104(4):534-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08419.x. View

Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A, Olsson L, Saint F, de la Taille A . Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001; 166(5):1662-4. View

Lim J, Park C, Kim H, Park J . Comparison of perioperative outcomes between running versus interrupted vesicourethral anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy: A single-surgeon experience. Korean J Urol. 2015; 56(6):443-8. PMC: 4462634. DOI: 10.4111/kju.2015.56.6.443. View

Center M, Jemal A, Lortet-Tieulent J, Ward E, Ferlay J, Brawley O . International variation in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol. 2012; 61(6):1079-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.054. View

Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody J, Rogers C . Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol. 2010; 58(6):838-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2010.09.010. View

Bianco Jr F, Scardino P, Eastham J . Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function ("trifecta"). Urology. 2005; 66(5 Suppl):83-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.116. View

Van Velthoven R, Ahlering T, Peltier A, Skarecky D, Clayman R . Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis:the single knot method. Urology. 2003; 61(4):699-702. DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02543-8. View

Graefen M, Walz J, Huland H . Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2005; 49(1):38-48. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.10.008. View

Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani K, Fumo M, Bhandari M . Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2006; 51(3):648-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.055. View

10.

Labanaris A, Witt J, Zugor V . Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in men ≥75 years of age. Surgical, oncological and functional outcomes. Anticancer Res. 2012; 32(5):2085-9. View

11.

Forster J, Palit V, Myatt A, Hadi S, Bryan N . Technical description and outcomes of a continuous anastomosis in open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2009; 104(7):929-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08526.x. View

12.

Krambeck A, DiMarco D, Rangel L, Bergstralh E, Myers R, Blute M . Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int. 2008; 103(4):448-53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.08012.x. View

13.

Ulmer W, Prasad S, Kowalczyk K, Gu X, Dodgion C, Lipsitz S . Factors associated with the adoption of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in the United States. J Urol. 2012; 188(3):775-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.05.014. View

14.

Holmberg L, Bill-Axelson A, Helgesen F, Salo J, Folmerz P, Haggman M . A randomized trial comparing radical prostatectomy with watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(11):781-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa012794. View

15.

Teber D, Erdogru T, Cresswell J, Gozen A, Frede T, Rassweiler J . Analysis of three different vesicourethral anastomotic techniques in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2008; 26(6):617-22. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-008-0281-0. View

16.

Walsh P . Anatomic radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol. 1998; 160(6 Pt 2):2418-24. DOI: 10.1097/00005392-199812020-00010. View

17.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P . Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240(2):205-13. PMC: 1360123. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae. View

18.

Lee S, Han D, Lee K, Jeon S . Effect of Continuous Urethro-Vesical Anastomosis Technique in Incontinence After Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy, 1:1 Matching Study. Int Neurourol J. 2015; 19(2):113-9. PMC: 4490312. DOI: 10.5213/inj.2015.19.2.113. View

19.

Jung K, Park S, Kong H, Won Y, Lee J, Seo H . Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and prevalence in 2009. Cancer Res Treat. 2012; 44(1):11-24. PMC: 3322196. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2012.44.1.11. View

20.

Antebi E, Eldefrawy A, Katkoori D, Soloway C, Manoharan M, Soloway M . Oncological and functional outcomes following open radical prostatectomy: how patients may achieve the "Trifecta"?. Int Braz J Urol. 2011; 37(3):320-7. DOI: 10.1590/s1677-55382011000300005. View