Anup Vora

Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy: multi-institutional outcomes for glands larger than 100 grams.

PURPOSE To present our experience with robot-assisted simple prostatectomy in patients with large gland adenoma (>100 g) that would not be amenable to transurethral treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS From August 2009 to May 2011, 13 robot-assisted simple suprapubic prostatectomies were performed in patients with symptomatic large gland (>100 g) prostatomegaly on transrectal ultrasonography (mean 163 cc). Essential aspects of our technique include a transverse cystotomy just proximal to the prostatovesical junction and use of a robotic tenotomy grasper to aid in adenoma dissection. RESULTS Mean operative time was 179 minutes (range 90-270 min), and mean estimated blood loss was 219 mL (range 50-500 mL). Mean hospital stay was 2.7 days (range 1-8 d), and the mean urethral catheterization time was 8.8 days (range 5-14 d). None of the patients needed blood transfusion. One patient had an intraoperative urinary leak after bladder closure that was managed with prolonged urethral catheterization (14 d). Histopathologic analysis confirmed benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in all patients, and mean specimen weight on pathologic examination was 127 g (range 100-165 g). Mean follow-up duration was 7.2 months with all patients having a minimum of a 4-month follow-up. Significant improvements were noted in the International Prostate Symptom Score (preoperative vs postoperative 18.1 vs 5.3, p<0.001) and the maximum urine flow rate (preoperative vs postoperative 4.3 vs 19.1 mL/min, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Minimally invasive robot-assisted simple prostatectomy is technically feasible in patients with large volume (>100 g) BPH and is associated with significant improvements in obstructive urinary symptoms. Surgeons with robotic expertise may consider using this approach for treatment of their patients with large volume BPH.

Does pure robotic partial nephrectomy provide similar perioperative outcomes when compared to the combined laparoscopic–robotic approach?

Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy have become the preferred option for surgical management of incidentally discovered small renal tumors. Currently there is no consensus on which aspects of the procedure should be performed laparoscopically versus robotically. We believe that combining a laparoscopic exposure and hilar dissection followed by tumor extirpation and renorrhaphy with robotic assistance provides improved perioperative outcomes compared to a pure robotic approach alone. We performed a comparison of perioperative outcomes between combined laparoscopic–robotic partial nephrectomy—or hybrid procedure—and pure robotic partial nephrectomy (RPN). A multi-center retrospective analysis of patients undergoing RPN and hybrid PN using the da Vinci S system® was performed. Patient data were reviewed for demographic and perioperative variables. Statistical analysis was performed using the Welch t test and linear regression, and nonparametric tests with similar significance results. Thirty-one patients underwent RPN while 77 patients underwent hybrid PN between 2007 and 2011. Preoperative variables were comparable in both groups with the exception of lesion size and nephrometry score which were significantly higher in patients undergoing hybrid PN. Length of surgery, estimated blood loss and morphine used were significantly less in the hybrid group, while warm ischemia time was significantly longer. The difference in WIT was accounted for in this data by adjusting for nephrometry score. In our multi-center series, the hybrid approach was associated with a shorter operative time, reduced blood loss and lower narcotic usage. We believe this approach is a valid alternative to RPN.