Robotic radical perineal prostatectomy: tradition and evolution in the robotic era.
Paolo Minafra, Umberto Carbonara, Antonio Vitarelli, Giuseppe Lucarelli, Michele Battaglia, Pasquale Ditonno
Author Information
Paolo Minafra: Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation -Urology, Andrology, and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', Bari, Italy.
Umberto Carbonara: Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation -Urology, Andrology, and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', Bari, Italy.
Antonio Vitarelli: Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation -Urology, Andrology, and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', Bari, Italy.
Giuseppe Lucarelli: Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation -Urology, Andrology, and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', Bari, Italy.
Michele Battaglia: Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation -Urology, Andrology, and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', Bari, Italy.
Pasquale Ditonno: Department of Emergency and Organ Transplantation -Urology, Andrology, and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', Bari, Italy.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an updated review of robotic radical perineal prostatectomy (r-RPP) with emphasis on the recent advances in terms of surgical technique, outcomes, and new robotic platforms. RECENT FINDING: The technological innovations in the urological field have been applied to radical prostatectomy with the aim of preserving important anatomical structures and reduce patients' morbidity and mortality. In recent years, robotic surgery contributed to resurge radical perineal prostatectomy. In 2014, the Cleveland Clinic group was the first to demonstrate the utility of a robotic approach in RPP. To date, the majority of the reported studies showed that r-RPP has noninferior perioperative, short-term oncological, and functional outcomes compared with the traditional robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Given these benefits, r-RPP is a promising approach in selected patients, such as obese ones. Moreover, robotic perineal pelvic lymph node dissection performed through the same incision of r-RPP and the new Single-Port (SP) Robotic System represent further steps towards the overcoming of some intrinsic limitation of this surgical approach making this technique suitable for a larger number of patients with prostatic cancer. SUMMARY: Overall, r-RPP represents a reliable and effective novel surgical technique. However, more studies with long-term follow-up are needed to clarify the advantages over RARP.
References
EAU Guidelines: Prostate Cancer | Uroweb [Internet]. [cited 22 august 2020]. Available at: https://uroweb.org/guideline/prostate-cancer/ . [Accessed 31 August 2020].
Costello AJ. Considering the role of radical prostatectomy in 21st century prostate cancer care. Nat Rev Urol 2020; 17:177–88.
Walsh PC. Radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostatic carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 1980; 7:583–591.
Laydner H, Akça O, Autorino R, et al. Perineal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in the cadaver model. J Endourol 2014; 28:1479–1486.
Kaouk JH, Akca O, Zargar H, et al. Descriptive technique and initial results for robotic radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology 2016; 94:129–138.
Garisto J, Bertolo R, Wilson CA, Kaouk J. The evolution and resurgence of perineal prostatectomy in the robotic surgical era. World J Urol 2020; 38:821–828.
Young HH. The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostato-seminal vesiculectomy): history, literature and statistics of Young's Peration 1 . J Urol 1945; 53:188–252.
Resnick MI. Radical perineal prostatectomy. BJU Int 2003; 92:522–523.
Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128:492–497.
Kirschner-Hermanns R, Borchers H, Reineke T, et al. Fecal incontinence after radical perineal prostatectomy: a prospective study. Urology 2005; 65:337–342.
Abbou C-C, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2017; 197 (6 pt 1):S210–S212.
Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2001; 87:408–410.
Lowrance WT, Eastham JA, Savage C, et al. Contemporary open and robotic radical prostatectomy practice patterns among urologists in the United States. J Urol 2012; 187:2087–2092.
Ramirez D, Maurice MJ, Kaouk JH. Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection using a purpose-built single-port robotic platform. BJU Int 2016; 118:829–833.
Kaouk J, Garisto J, Bertolo R. Robotic urologic surgical interventions performed with the single port dedicated platform: first clinical investigation. Eur Urol 2019; 75:684–691.
Kaouk JH, Bertolo R. Single-site robotic platform in clinical practice: first cases in the USA. Minerva Urol E Nefrol Ital J Urol Nephrol 2019; 71:294–298.
Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A, et al. Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases. Turk J Urol 2017; 43:476–483.
Tuğcu V, Ekşi M, Sahin S, et al. Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases. BJU Int 2020; 125:573–578.
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol 2012; 61:480–487.
Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Zaffuto E, et al. Development and internal validation of a novel model to identify the candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017; 72:632–640.
Keller H, Lehmann J, Beier J. Radical perineal prostatectomy and simultaneous extended pelvic lymph node dissection via the same incision. Eur Urol aug 2007; 52:384–388.
Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A, et al. Robotic perineal radical prostatectomy and robotic pelvic lymph node dissection via a perineal approach: the Tugcu Bakirkoy Technique. Turk J Urol 2018; 44:114–118.
Belt E. Radical Perineal Prostatectomy in Early Carcinoma of the Prostate. J Urol 1942; 48:287–297.
Tuğcu V, Akça O, Şimşek A, et al. Robotic-assisted perineal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: a matched-pair analysis. Turk J Urol 2019; 45:265–272.
Vitarelli A, Rienzo GD, Pagliarulo V, et al. Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: our experience with a new Retzius-sparing approach. Eur Urol Open Sci 2020; 19:e2337.
Chang Y, Xu W, Lu X, Zhou Y, et al. Robotic Perineal radical prostatectomy: initial experience with the da Vinci Si Robotic System. Urol Int 2020; 1049:710–715.
Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, et al. Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62:1–15.
Wroński S. Radical perineal prostatectomy – the contemporary resurgence of a genuinely minimally invasive procedure: procedure outline. Comparison of the advantages, disadvantages, and outcomes of different surgical techniques of treating organ-confined prostate cancer (PCa). A literature review with special focus on perineal prostatectomy. Cent Eur J Urol 2012; 65:188–194.
Song W, Park JH, Jeon HG, et al. Comparison of oncologic outcomes and complications according to surgical approach to radical prostatectomy: special focus on the perineal approach. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15:e645–e652.
Comploj E, Pycha A. Experience with radical perineal prostatectomy in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 2012; 4:125–131.
Asimakopoulos AD, Topazio L, De Angelis M, et al. Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc 2019; 33:2187–2196.
Dalela D, Jeong W, Prasad M-A, et al. A pragmatic randomized controlled trial examining the impact of the Retzius-sparing approach on early urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2017; 72:677–685.
Checcucci E, Veccia A, Fiori C, et al. Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs the standard approach: a systematic review and analysis of comparative outcomes. BJU Int 2020; 125:8–16.
Arroyo C, Martini A, Wang J, Tewari AK. Anatomical, surgical and technical factors influencing continence after radical prostatectomy. Ther Adv Urol 2019; 11:1756287218813787.
Chang L-W, Hung S-C, Hu J-C, Chiu K-Y. Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy associated with less bladder neck descent and better early continence outcome. Anticancer Res 2018; 38:345–351.
Bjøro B, Mykkeltveit I, Rustøen T, et al. Intraoperative peripheral nerve injury related to lithotomy positioning with steep Trendelenburg in patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery - a systematic review. J Adv Nurs 2020; 76:490–503.
Onagi A, Haga N, Tanji R, et al. Transient renal dysfunction due to rhabdomyolysis after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int Urol Nephrol 2020; 52:1877–1884.
Fichtner J, Mengesha D, Hutschenreiter G, Scherer R. Feasibility of radical perineal prostatectomy under spinal anaesthesia. BJU Int 2004; 94:802–804.
Di Pierro GB, Grande P, Mordasini L, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the setting of previous abdominal surgery: perioperative results, oncological and functional outcomes, and complications in a single surgeon's series. Int J Surg Lond Engl 2016; 36 (Pt A):170–176.
Knipper S, Mazzone E, Mistretta FA, et al. Impact of obesity on perioperative outcomes at robotic-assisted and open radical prostatectomy: results from the national inpatient sample. Urology 2019; 133:135–144.
Du Y, Long Q, Guan B, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is more beneficial for prostate cancer patients: a system review and meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Exp Clin Res 2018; 24:272–287.
Villavicencio H, Segarra J. Perineal prostatectomy. Ann Urol 2006; 40:317–327.
