ROBOTIC RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY IN THE COMMUNITY SETTING—THE LEARNING CURVE AND BEYOND: INITIAL 200 CASES
Abstract
Purpose:
The introduction of robotic assistance has the potential to improve surgical outcomes and reduce the steep learning curve associated with conventional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. We report on our experience with robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting.
Materials and Methods:
A total of 200 patients underwent robotic radical prostatectomy during 18 months. Prospective data collection included a quality of life (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) questionnaire, basic demographics, prostate specific antigen (PSA), clinical stage and Gleason grade. Operative outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss and complications. Postoperative outcome measures included hospital stay, catheter time, pathology, PSA and return of continence.
Results:
Average operative time was 141 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 75 cc. The intraoperative complication rate was 1% with no mortality, reexploration or transfusion. Of the patients 95% were discharged home on postoperative day 1 (1 to 3) with hematocrit averaging 34.5 (range 25 to 45). The average difference in preoperative and postoperative hematocrit was 3 points (range -2 to 15). Average catheter time was 7.2 days (range 5 to 15). The positive margin rate was 10.5% for the entire series, 5.7% for T2 tumors, 28.5% (T3a), 20% (T3b) and 33% (T4a). Of the patients 95% had undetectable PSA (less than 0.1 ng/ml) at average followup of 9.7 months. Continence at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months was 47%, 78%, 89%, 92% and 98%, respectively.
Conclusions:
Our initial experience with robotic radical prostatectomy is promising. The learning curve was approximately 20 to 25 cases. With a structured methodical approach we were able to implement robotics safely and effectively into our community practice with minimal patient morbidity, and good oncological and functional outcomes.
References
- 1 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short term experience. Urology1997; 50: 854. Google Scholar
- 2 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. J Urol2000; 163: 418. Link, Google Scholar
- 3 : Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparitive study at a single institution. J Urol2003; 169: 1689. Link, Google Scholar
- 4 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol2001; 166: 2101. Link, Google Scholar
- 5 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Technical aspects and experience with 125 cases. Eur Urol2001; 40: 46. Google Scholar
- 6 : Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol2002; 42: 104. Google Scholar
- 7 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series. BJU2002; 90: 876. Google Scholar
- 8 : Complications and initial experience with 1228 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies at 6 European centers. J Urol2001; 165: 150. abstract 615. Google Scholar
- 9 : Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial 70 cases at a U. S. university medical center. Urology2002; 60: 859. Google Scholar
- 10 : 100 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies (LRP): learning curve in the United States. J Urol2002; 167: 390. abstract 1552. Google Scholar
- 11 : A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int2003; 92: 205. Google Scholar
- 12 : Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute Technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology2003; 61: 15. Google Scholar
- 13 : Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology2003; 61: 699. Google Scholar
- 14 : Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology2004; 63: 819. Google Scholar
- 15 : Mid-term oncological follow-up of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: mono-institutional experience based on 800 consecutive patients. J Urol2002; 167: 390. abstract 1551. Google Scholar
From the Urology Centers of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama
