Contemporary Techniques of Prostate Dissection for Robot-assisted Prostatectomy.


Journal

European urology
ISSN: 1873-7560
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 7512719

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
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

583-591

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Alberto Martini (A)

Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: martini.alberto@hsr.it.

Ugo Giovanni Falagario (UG)

Department of Urology and Organ Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Arnauld Villers (A)

Department of Urology, CHU Lille, Université de Lille, Lille, France.

Paolo Dell'Oglio (P)

Department of Urology, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Elio Mazzone (E)

Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium.

Riccardo Autorino (R)

Department of Urology, Department of Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA, USA.

Marcio Covas Moschovas (MC)

AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA.

Maurizio Buscarini (M)

Università Campus Biomedico, Rome, Italy.

Carlo Andrea Bravi (CA)

Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Alberto Briganti (A)

Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Guilherme Sawczyn (G)

Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA.

Jihad Kaouk (J)

Department of Urology, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, OH, USA.

Mani Menon (M)

Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA.

Silvia Secco (S)

Department of Urology, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Aldo Massimo Bocciardi (AM)

Department of Urology, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, Italy.

Gongxian Wang (G)

Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.

Xiaochen Zhou (X)

Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China.

Francesco Porpiglia (F)

Department of Urology, San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy.

Alexandre Mottrie (A)

Department of Urology, Onze Lieve Vrouw Hospital, Aalst, Belgium.

Vipul Patel (V)

AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, USA.

Ashutosh K Tewari (AK)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Francesco Montorsi (F)

Department of Urology, Urological Research Institute, Vita-Salute University, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.

Richard Gaston (R)

Department of Urology, Clinique Saint Augustin, Bordeaux, France.

N Peter Wiklund (NP)

Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.

Ashok K Hemal (AK)

Department of Urology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH