The Goldilocks principle: when to remove Foley catheter after robotic radical prostatectomy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Busby D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9732704 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The Goldilocks principle: when to remove Foley catheter after robotic radical prostatectomy.
Translational andrology and urology 20221101 11
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10696853 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9177257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe assistance of robotic systems raises the concern of whether there is an improved learning in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared to open retropubic radical prostatectomy (ORP).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed data from 1438 patients who underwent ORP (n = 735) or RARP (n = 703). For each procedure, the level of experience of three different surgeons was summarized. Perioperative and pathological parameters reflecting surgical performance were compared between both learning curves. RARP data were influenced by new introduction of the robotic system.ResultsThe median patient age at surgery was 66 years (IQR 42-80). Patients in the RARP group were younger (p < 0.001) and had a lower oncological risk (p < 0.001). Inexperienced RARP surgeons had a higher pT2-PSM rate and lower lymph node yield (13.8 ± 4.7 vs. 14.7 ± 4.8; p = 0.03) than inexperienced ORP surgeons. After 100 procedures, RARP and ORP surgeons had the same pT2-PSM rate (8% vs. 8%; p = 0.8) and lymph node yield (15.4 ± 5.4 vs. 15.4 ± 5.1; p = 1.0). In multivariate analysis for ORP, surgical inexperience (≤ 100 cases) was an independent predictor of a longer operating time (OR 9.0; p < 0.001) and higher amount of blood loss (OR 2.9; p < 0.001). For RARP, surgical inexperience (≤ 100 cases) was a predictor of a longer operating time (OR 3.9; p < 0.001), higher amount of blood loss (OR 1.9; p = 0.004), higher pT2-PSM rate (OR 1.6; p = 0.03), and lower lymph node yield (OR 0.6; p = 0.001).ConclusionsSurgical experience has a relevant impact on perioperative and pathological parameters RARP has a higher initial pT2-PSM rate and lower lymph node yield than ORP. This is relevant for patient selection for novice teaching in RARP.
| S-EPMC8602152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of single port (SP) robot radical prostatectomy and multiport (MP) robot radical prostatectomy.MethodsUsing the China National Knowledge database, EMBASE, Cochrane library, PubMed, and other databases to obtain relevant research, SP robot radical prostatectomy and MP robot radical prostatectomy were comprehensively evaluated. The software used to evaluate the impact of the results in the selected articles was Review Manager 5.2. Deviation analysis, forest plot analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out for the collected data.ResultsA total of 7 related studies that met the criteria were finally included. The data showed that the operation time of MP in the control group was significantly longer than that in the SP group [mean difference (MD) =-13.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): (-17.35, -9.23); P<0.00001; I2=50%]. The duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay for SP surgery was shorter than that for MP surgery [MD =-18.30; 95% CI: (-29.17, -7.42); P=0.0010; I2=94%]. The blood loss of SP surgery was less than that of MP surgery [MD =-15.54; 95% CI: (-28.37, -2.71); the total effective rate was 0.02; I2=0%]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between SP and MP surgery [risk ratio (RR) =0.95; 95% CI: (0.55, 1.63); P=0.85; I2=0%]. At the same time, the sensitivity analysis and funnel plot showed that this study was robust and publication bias was limited.DiscussionOur results show that SP robotic radical prostatectomy is superior to MP robotic radical prostatectomy in terms of efficacy and safety. SP robot radical prostatectomy is worthy of wide promotion.
| S-EPMC8749066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the technical aspects and outcomes of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) following abandoned open radical prostatectomy (ORP).Patients and methodsA retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent RARP following abandonment of ORP between 2016 and 2020. RARP was undertaken by two highly experienced robotic surgeons. Analysis of patient and operative characteristics, outcomes, and reasons for abandonment of ORP were described.ResultsSix patients were included for analysis with a median age of 63.5 years [50.3-67.5]. The median body mass index (BMI) was 34.7 [27.8-36.2]. All patients had intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Small prostate and deep pelvis were given as reasons for abandoning ORP in five cases (83.3%), with four of these also attributing increased BMI as a factor. Extensive mesh from previous bilateral inguinal hernia repair was cited as the reason for abandonment in the remaining patient. One patient had commenced androgen deprivation therapy following abandoned ORP. Extensive retropubic adhesions were noted at the time of RARP in five of six patients, with intraoperative complication of small bladder lacerations encountered in the patient with prior mesh hernia repair. The median time from abandoned ORP to RARP was 128 days [40-216]. Median operating time was 160 minutes [139-190] and estimated blood loss was 225 mL [138-375]. Negative margins were obtained in four of six cases, with further salvage treatment being required in one case at a median follow-up duration of 10.5 months [6.5-25.3].ConclusionAbandonment of ORP is an uncommonly reported event, however, in this small case series, we demonstrate that, in the hands of experienced surgeons, RARP is a safe and technically feasible alternative in such cases. Increased BMI, small prostate size and pelvic anatomical constraints appear to be common catalysts for abandonment of open surgery in this cohort. Identifying these high-risk patients early and considering referral to robotic centers may be preferred.
| S-EPMC8988844 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10853259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Robotic radical prostatectomy is a new innovation in the surgical treatment of prostate cancer. The technique is continuously evolving. In this article we demonstrate The Ohio State University technique for robotic radical prostatectomy. Robotic radical prostatectomy is performed using the da Vinci surgical system. The video demonstrates each step of the surgical procedure. Preliminary results with robotic prostatectomy demonstrate the benefits of minimally invasive surgery while also showing encouraging short-term outcomes in terms of continence, potency and cancer control. Robotic radical prostatectomy is an evolving technique that provides a minimally invasive alternative for the treatment of prostate cancer. Our experience with the procedure now stands at over 1,300 cases.
| S-EPMC4559575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProstate cancer is the second most common type of cancer in Canadian men. Radical prostatectomy is one of the treatment options available, and involves removing the prostate gland and surrounding tissues. In recent years, surgeons have begun to use robot-assisted radical prostatectomy more frequently. We aimed to determine the clinical benefits and harms of the robotic surgical system for radical prostatectomy (robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) compared with the open and laparoscopic surgical methods. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer in Ontario.MethodsWe performed a literature search and included prospective comparative studies that examined robot-assisted versus open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The outcomes of interest were perioperative, functional, and oncological. The quality of the body of evidence was examined according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We also conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 1-year time horizon. The potential long-term benefits of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for functional and oncological outcomes were also evaluated in a 10-year Markov model in scenario analyses. In addition, we conducted a budget impact analysis to estimate the additional costs to the provincial budget if the adoption of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were to increase in the next 5 years. A needs assessment determined that the published literature on patient perspectives was relatively well developed, and that direct patient engagement would add relatively little new information.ResultsCompared with the open approach, we found robot-assisted radical prostatectomy reduced length of stay and blood loss (moderate quality evidence) but had no difference or inconclusive results for functional and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy had no difference in perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes (low to moderate quality evidence). Compared with open radical prostatectomy, our best estimates suggested that robot-assisted prostatectomy was associated with higher costs ($6,234) and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (0.0012). The best estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5.2 million per QALY gained. However, if robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were assumed to have substantially better long-term functional and oncological outcomes, the ICER might be as low as $83,921 per QALY gained. We estimated the annual budget impact to be $0.8 million to $3.4 million over the next 5 years.ConclusionsThere is no high-quality evidence that robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves functional and oncological outcomes compared with open and laparoscopic approaches. However, compared with open radical prostatectomy, the costs of using the robotic system are relatively large while the health benefits are relatively small.
| S-EPMC5515322 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7817323 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10357831 | biostudies-literature