Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting--the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases.

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.

[1]  S. Loening,et al.  Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy , 2001, European Urology.

[2]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. , 2002, The Journal of urology.

[3]  J. Rassweiler,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: an analysis of the first 180 cases. , 2001, The Journal of urology.

[4]  T. Ahlering,et al.  Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon's outcomes. , 2004, Urology.

[5]  M. Menon,et al.  Robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuti Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. , 2003, Urology.

[6]  L R Kavoussi,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. , 1997, Urology.

[7]  Dogu Teber,et al.  Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[8]  C. Abbou,et al.  Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. , 2002, European urology.

[9]  B. Guillonneau,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris experience. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[10]  M. Menon,et al.  A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot‐assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution , 2003, BJU international.

[11]  D. Litwin,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial 70 cases at a U.S. university medical center. , 2002, Urology.

[12]  C. Eden,et al.  Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the initial UK series , 2002, BJU international.

[13]  Ralph V Clayman,et al.  Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis:the single knot method. , 2003, Urology.

[14]  C. Abbou,et al.  Urinary continence and erectile function: a prospective evaluation of functional results after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. , 2002, European urology.