INTRODUCTION: To describe immediate perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent cancer following radiation therapy, and compare outcomes to a contemporary open surgical cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 39 patients underwent salvage radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy (20 robotic, 19 open) for local recurrence following radiation therapy at a single institution between 2007 and 2011. Intraoperative parameters, postoperative complications, and oncological outcomes, were recorded. Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test were used for comparison of continuous and categorical variables respectively. Mean values of numeric variables are reported with standard deviation. RESULTS: The cohorts were similar with respect to age, ethnicity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Score classification. Estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group versus the open group (381.3 mL versus 865.0 mL, p = 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of intraoperative complications, postoperative Clavien = 3 complications (30% versus 15.7%), anastomotic leak (40% versus 42.1%), or wound infection (0% versus 15.7%) in the robotic and open groups. Mean node yield (10.4 versus 11.8), positive surgical margins (15.0% versus 15.7%), and undetectable prostate-specific antigen rate (78% versus 60%) were also similar between the robotic and open groups. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic salvage prostatectomy appears to have no significant difference to the open approach with respect to safety and surgical quality as measured by complications, node yield and surgical margins in this retrospective single-institution series.
INTRODUCTION: To describe immediate perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent cancer following radiation therapy, and compare outcomes to a contemporary open surgical cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 39 patients underwent salvage radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy (20 robotic, 19 open) for local recurrence following radiation therapy at a single institution between 2007 and 2011. Intraoperative parameters, postoperative complications, and oncological outcomes, were recorded. Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test were used for comparison of continuous and categorical variables respectively. Mean values of numeric variables are reported with standard deviation. RESULTS: The cohorts were similar with respect to age, ethnicity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Score classification. Estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group versus the open group (381.3 mL versus 865.0 mL, p = 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of intraoperative complications, postoperative Clavien = 3 complications (30% versus 15.7%), anastomotic leak (40% versus 42.1%), or wound infection (0% versus 15.7%) in the robotic and open groups. Mean node yield (10.4 versus 11.8), positive surgical margins (15.0% versus 15.7%), and undetectable prostate-specific antigen rate (78% versus 60%) were also similar between the robotic and open groups. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic salvage prostatectomy appears to have no significant difference to the open approach with respect to safety and surgical quality as measured by complications, node yield and surgical margins in this retrospective single-institution series.
Authors: Ashutosh Tewari; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Daniel A Bloch; Usha Seshadri-Kreaden; April E Hebert; Peter Wiklund Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-02-24 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sanket Chauhan; Manoj B Patel; Rafael Coelho; Michael Liss; Bernardo Rocco; Ananth K Sivaraman; Kenneth J Palmer; Geoffrey D Coughlin; Robert G Ferrigni; Erik P Castle; Thomas E Ahlering; Eduard Parra-Davila; Vipul R Patel Journal: J Endourol Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Daher C Chade; Shahrokh F Shariat; Angel M Cronin; Caroline J Savage; R Jeffrey Karnes; Michael L Blute; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi; Henk G van der Poel; Hendrik Van Poppel; Steven Joniau; Guilherme Godoy; Antonio Hurtado-Coll; Martin E Gleave; Marcos Dall'Oglio; Miguel Srougi; Peter T Scardino; James A Eastham Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ronald S Boris; Akshay Bhandari; L Spencer Krane; Daniel Eun; Sanjeev Kaul; James O Peabody Journal: BJU Int Date: 2008-12-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Christopher S Saigal; John L Gore; Tracey L Krupski; Janet Hanley; Matthias Schonlau; Mark S Litwin Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jonathan A Eandi; Brian A Link; Rebecca A Nelson; David Y Josephson; Clayton Lau; Mark H Kawachi; Timothy G Wilson Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Piyush K Agarwal; Natalia Sadetsky; Badrinath R Konety; Martin I Resnick; Peter R Carroll Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Romain Clery; Pietro Grande; Thomas Seisen; Aurélien Gobert; Igor Duquesne; Arnauld Villers; Jonathan Olivier; Jean-Christophe Bernhard; Grégoire Robert; Jean Baptiste Beauval; Thomas Prudhomme; Franck Bruyère; Paul Lainé-Caroff; David Waltregny; Bertrand Guillonneau; Daniele Panarello; Alain Ruffion; Hubert De Bayser; Alexandre de La Taille; Morgan Roupret Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-02-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Giorgio Calleris; Giancarlo Marra; Ettore Dalmasso; Marco Falcone; Robert Jeffrey Karnes; Alessandro Morlacco; Marco Oderda; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; Francesco Soria; Paolo Gontero Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Raquel Catarino; Renán Javier Otta-Oshiro; Fernando Lista-Mateos; Jose María García-Mediero; Carlos Nunez-Mora Journal: Cent European J Urol Date: 2022-03-24
Authors: Brecht Devos; Walid Al Hajj Obeid; Colin Andrianne; Romain Diamand; Alexandre Peltier; Wouter Everaerts; Hein Van Poppel; Roland Van Velthoven; Steven Joniau Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-21 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Leszek Miszczyk; Małgorzata Stąpór-Fudzińska; Marcin Miszczyk; Bogusław Maciejewski; Andrzej Tukiendorf Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-01