Contemporary Techniques of Prostate Dissection for Robot-assisted Prostatectomy.
Prostate cancer
Prostatectomy
Robotics
Surgery
Technique
Journal
European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
13
01
2020
accepted:
16
07
2020
pubmed:
5
8
2020
medline:
16
7
2021
entrez:
5
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Over the years, several techniques for performing robot-assisted prostatectomy have been implemented in an effort to achieve optimal oncological and functional outcomes. To provide an evidence-based description and video-based illustration of currently available dissection techniques for robotic prostatectomy. A literature search was performed to retrieve articles describing different surgical approaches and techniques for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to analyze data supporting their use. Video material was provided by experts in the field to illustrate these approaches and techniques. Multiple surgical approaches are available: extraperitoneal, transvesical, transperitoneal posterior, transperitoneal anterior, Retzius sparing, and transperineal. Surgical techniques for prostatic dissection sensu strictu are the following: omission of the endopelvic fascia dissection, bladder neck preservation, incremental nerve sparing by means of an antegrade or retrograde approach, and preservation of the puboprostatic ligaments and dorsal venous complex. Recently, techniques for total or partial prostatectomy have been described. Different surgical approaches and techniques for robotic prostatectomy have been analyzed. Two randomized controlled trials evaluating the extraperitoneal versus the transperitoneal approach have demonstrated similar results. Level I evidence on the Retzius-sparing approach demonstrated earlier return to continence than the traditional anterior approach. The question whether Retzius-sparing RARP is associated with a higher rate of positive surgical margins is still open due to the intrinsic bias in terms of surgical expertise in the available comparative studies. This technique also offers an advantage in patients who have received kidney transplantation. Retrospective evidence suggests that the more the anatomical dissection (eg., more periprostatic tissue is preserved), the better the functional outcome in terms of continence. Yet, two randomized controlled trials evaluating the different techniques of dissection have so far been produced. Partial prostatectomies should not be offered outside clinical trials. Several techniques and approaches are available for prostate dissection during RARP. While the Retzius-sparing approach seems to provide earlier return to continence than the traditional anterior transperitoneal approach, no technique has been proved to be superior to other(s) in terms of long-term outcomes in randomized studies. We have summarized available approaches for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. Specifically, we described the different techniques that can be adopted for the surgical removal of the prostate using robotic technology.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Over the years, several techniques for performing robot-assisted prostatectomy have been implemented in an effort to achieve optimal oncological and functional outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To provide an evidence-based description and video-based illustration of currently available dissection techniques for robotic prostatectomy.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A literature search was performed to retrieve articles describing different surgical approaches and techniques for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and to analyze data supporting their use. Video material was provided by experts in the field to illustrate these approaches and techniques.
SURGICAL PROCEDURE
Multiple surgical approaches are available: extraperitoneal, transvesical, transperitoneal posterior, transperitoneal anterior, Retzius sparing, and transperineal. Surgical techniques for prostatic dissection sensu strictu are the following: omission of the endopelvic fascia dissection, bladder neck preservation, incremental nerve sparing by means of an antegrade or retrograde approach, and preservation of the puboprostatic ligaments and dorsal venous complex. Recently, techniques for total or partial prostatectomy have been described.
MEASUREMENTS
Different surgical approaches and techniques for robotic prostatectomy have been analyzed.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS
Two randomized controlled trials evaluating the extraperitoneal versus the transperitoneal approach have demonstrated similar results. Level I evidence on the Retzius-sparing approach demonstrated earlier return to continence than the traditional anterior approach. The question whether Retzius-sparing RARP is associated with a higher rate of positive surgical margins is still open due to the intrinsic bias in terms of surgical expertise in the available comparative studies. This technique also offers an advantage in patients who have received kidney transplantation. Retrospective evidence suggests that the more the anatomical dissection (eg., more periprostatic tissue is preserved), the better the functional outcome in terms of continence. Yet, two randomized controlled trials evaluating the different techniques of dissection have so far been produced. Partial prostatectomies should not be offered outside clinical trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Several techniques and approaches are available for prostate dissection during RARP. While the Retzius-sparing approach seems to provide earlier return to continence than the traditional anterior transperitoneal approach, no technique has been proved to be superior to other(s) in terms of long-term outcomes in randomized studies.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We have summarized available approaches for the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. Specifically, we described the different techniques that can be adopted for the surgical removal of the prostate using robotic technology.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32747200
pii: S0302-2838(20)30565-0
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.07.017
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Video-Audio Media
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
583-591Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.