Rafael N. Nunez

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy versus open radical cystectomy: A complete cost analysis

OBJECTIVES To perform a complete cost analysis comparing robot assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) versus open radical cystectomy (ORC). MATERIAL AND METHODS After institutional review board approval for data collection, we prospectively recorded perioperative outcomes and costs, such as hospital stay, transfusion rate, readmission rate, and medications for consecutive patients undergoing RARC or ORC. Using actual cost data, we developed a cost decision tree model to determine typical perioperative costs for both RARC and ORC. Multivariate sensitivity analysis was performed to elucidate which variables had the greatest impact on overall cost. Breakeven points with ORC were calculated using our model to better evaluate variable influence. In addition to the above modeled analysis, actual patient costs, including complications 30 days from surgery, were also compared for each procedure. RESULTS Our model analysis showed that operative time and length of stay had the greatest impact on perioperative costs. Robotic cystectomy became more expensive than open cystectomy at the following break-even points: operating room (OR) time greater than 361 minutes, length of stay greater than 6.6 days, or robotic OR supply cost exceeding

Robot-assisted radical cystectomy: Intermediate survival results at a mean follow-up of 25 months

5853. RARC was 16% more expensive when only comparing direct operative costs. Interestingly, actual total patient costs revealed a 38% cost advantage favoring RARC due to increased hospitalization costs for ORC in our cohort. CONCLUSIONS RARC can provide a cost-effective alternative to ORC with operative time and length of stay being the most critical cost determinants. Higher complication rates with ORC make total actual costs much higher than RARC.

Interval from prostate biopsy to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: effects on perioperative outcomes.

Study Type – Therapy (case series)
Level of Evidence 4

Incontinence after radical prostatectomy: A patient centered analysis and implications for preoperative counseling

To determine whether shorter intervals (<4 and 6 weeks) between prostate biopsy and robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) have a detrimental effect on perioperative outcomes, as recent studies showed that open RP shortly after prostate biopsy does not adversely influence surgical difficulty or efficacy, but RARP relies solely on visual cues rather than tactile sensation to determine posterior surgical planes of dissection.

Outpatient Prostatectomy: Too Much Too Soon or Just What the Patient Ordered

PURPOSE Incontinence after radical prostatectomy is common yet poorly defined in the current literature. We aimed to accurately characterize incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to achieve improved preoperative patient counseling. MATERIALS AND METHODS After receiving institutional review board approval we performed a cross-sectional survey of the first 600 patients with prostate cancer who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at our institution. The International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire-Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life and Urinary Incontinence Short Form were used to evaluate incontinence and quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Surveys were mailed by a third party. Data were analyzed on the prevalence of incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. More specifically we characterized in detail the nature of incontinence and its effect on quality of life. RESULTS The response rate was 68% (408 of 600 participants). Response time since surgery was 2.5 months to 4 years. Overall incontinence bother scores and ratings of life interference were quite low. Patients reported that most incontinence occurred during physical activity but 35% reported interference with sleep. Of the patients 31% experienced some anxiety due to urinary difficulties and 51% had to occasionally change clothes due to leakage. Patients did not report much interference with traveling, visiting friends or family and family life. The most bothersome aspects of incontinence were its effects on partner relationship, sexual life and energy levels. CONCLUSIONS Despite patient concerns of incontinence after prostatectomy they report little interference with quality of life.

Incidental prostate cancer revisited : Early outcomes after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the feasibility of performing a robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) as an outpatient procedure while maintaining patient satisfaction and safety. Herein we report our experience, selection criteria, and discharge criteria for outpatient RARP. METHODS We performed a prospective study with 11 patients undergoing extraperitoneal RARP. These patients were counseled before the procedure that they would go home the same evening of the procedure. The patients were then surveyed by a third party shortly after they returned home, using the Patient Judgement System-24, a previously validated instrument for patient satisfaction. Sociodemographic data, comorbidities, and outcomes were collected for analysis. RESULTS All patients were successfully discharged the same day of surgery. Mean patient age was 62.2 years with a mean body mass index of 26 kg/m(2). Mean operative time was 117.6 minutes, console time was 76.7 minutes, and estimated blood loss was 168.2 mL. Mean indwelling catheter time was 7.5 days. No complications occurred in this series of patients. Satisfaction was unanimously high in all patients surveyed, with most scores over 90% on the Patient Judgement System-24. No patient reported any ill effects from the shortened stay or felt rushed to leave the hospital. CONCLUSIONS The early experience with extraperitoneal RARP as a same day surgery is promising. Preoperative patient counseling and selection is paramount. Patient satisfaction is not adversely affected by the shortened stay. Surgeon experience, assessment of intraoperative findings, and adequate postoperative assessment are essential.

Incidental prostate cancer revisited

Incidental prostate cancer (PCa) after treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) is becoming less common. This is a result of the changing patterns of BPH treatment. The purpose of the present research was to re‐examine the clinical outcomes and importance of cT1a and cT1b PCa in a contemporary cohort after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). All patients with newly diagnosed PCa after HoLEP were retrospectively identified. Pre‐ and postoperative prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), biopsy history, pathological features and disease progression were examined. Patients were matched to a control group with benign pathology for outcome comparisons. The database consisted of 240 consecutive patients, aged 52–90 years with prostate sizes from 25 to 375 cm3. A total of 28 patients were identified with incidental PCa (14 cT1a and 14 cT1b). Median follow up was 11 months and 13 months for cT1a and cT1b, respectively. Hospitalization time, catheterization time, complications and functional outcomes were similar. Three patients with cT1b required additional treatment as a result of PSA progression. All other cancers are being closely followed. The functional benefits of HoLEP are well established. The incidental PCa detection rate of 11.7% shows the potential benefit of pathological analysis. Just 10.7% of these patients received additional treatment, but this might be significant as these patients would otherwise go untreated. The impact on disease‐specific survival and progression requires a longer follow up.

Does a history of previous surgery or radiation to the prostate affect outcomes of robot―assisted radical prostatectomy?

Incidental prostate cancer (PCa) after treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) is becoming less common. This is a result of the changing patterns of BPH treatment. The purpose of the present research was to re‐examine the clinical outcomes and importance of cT1a and cT1b PCa in a contemporary cohort after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). All patients with newly diagnosed PCa after HoLEP were retrospectively identified. Pre‐ and postoperative prostate‐specific antigen (PSA), biopsy history, pathological features and disease progression were examined. Patients were matched to a control group with benign pathology for outcome comparisons. The database consisted of 240 consecutive patients, aged 52–90 years with prostate sizes from 25 to 375 cm3. A total of 28 patients were identified with incidental PCa (14 cT1a and 14 cT1b). Median follow up was 11 months and 13 months for cT1a and cT1b, respectively. Hospitalization time, catheterization time, complications and functional outcomes were similar. Three patients with cT1b required additional treatment as a result of PSA progression. All other cancers are being closely followed. The functional benefits of HoLEP are well established. The incidental PCa detection rate of 11.7% shows the potential benefit of pathological analysis. Just 10.7% of these patients received additional treatment, but this might be significant as these patients would otherwise go untreated. The impact on disease‐specific survival and progression requires a longer follow up.

Different Approaches to an Inguinal Hernia Repair During a Simultaneous Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

To evaluate retrospectively whether or not previous treatment to the prostate alters the perioperative outcomes from robot‐assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) after the initial ‘learning curve’, as there are conflicting data on outcomes of RP in patients with previous treatment to the prostate.

Bleeding after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate: Lessons learned the hard way

OBJECTIVES To determine if different approaches to an inguinal hernia repair (robotic, laparoscopic, or open) results in different outcomes during a simultaneous robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). METHODS We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively generated database of all RARPs performed at our institution. Patients who had a simultaneous inguinal hernia repair were identified. We compared them to an age-matched and body mass index-matched cohort who underwent RARP alone. We also compared outcomes between robotic versus laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair. RESULTS A total of 1224 RARPs were performed between March 2004 and September 2009. Eighteen patients had simultaneous inguinal hernia repairs during their RARP performed by a general surgeon (5 laparoscopic, 8 open, and 5 robotic). When compared with the cohort who underwent RARP only, there were no statistically significant differences in blood loss, length of stay, or complications. The control group had a significantly shorter OR time (179.5 vs. 215.5 minutes, p = 0.007). When comparing the different approaches of an inguinal hernia repair, the only statistically significant differences noted were body mass index and operative time. Operative time was longer in open versus robotic inguinal hernia repair (74 vs. 31.6 minutes, p = 0.006). There were only two recurrences, both after the simultaneous open inguinal hernia repair. CONCLUSIONS Simultaneous inguinal hernia repair is a safe and feasible operation to perform during RARP. Although it does extend overall operative time, approaching the repair robotically is quicker than an open approach. A randomized study is needed to truly determine if one approach has better outcomes than the rest.