Preview

Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg)

Advanced search

Five year experience in prostate cancer surgery on «Da Vinci» robot

Abstract

THE AIM: to analyze the results and estimation of efficacy of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with prostate cancer (PCa). PATIENTS AND METHODS. Between 2010 and 2016 we performed 257 RARP in patients with PCa stage T1-T3aN0M0, Gleason 4-9, 48-78 years old with 11,5-155 ml prostate volume and 3,1-120 ng/ml general PSA level. We performed standard and modified RARP technique which included the preserving and reconstruction of periprostatic anatomical structures of pelvic. RESULTS. The operative time was 170±50 min, blood loss - 130±35 ml. There were no conversions, the intraoperative complications rate was 2,1%. Postoperative Clavien I-II rate - 21%, Clavien III - 3,5%, Clavien IV-V - 0%. Hospital stay was 12,0±4,2 days, urethral catheter removed on day 7-8. The continence rate was 91% and 98,6% after 1 and 12 months respectively, the potency recovery rate was 72% and 92% in 1 and 12 months respectively. The positive surgical margin rate was 14%. The “trifecta” and “pentafecta” were achieved in 87% and 52% respectively after 12 months. Five-years cancer-free survival rate, cancer-specific and overall survival rate were 94%, 100% and 97,5% respectively. CONCLUSION. Due to construction benefits of da Vinci robotic system we may now achieve preserving, reconstruction and enhancing of periprostatiс anatomical structures which are participated in continence mechanism. The improving of RARP technique should contribute to early continence recovery in patients with PCa.

About the Authors

M. S. Mosoyan
Saint-Petersburg State I.P Pavlov Medical University; Federal Almazov North-West Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation


S. Kh. Al-Shukri
Saint-Petersburg State I.P Pavlov Medical University
Russian Federation


D. M. Ilin
Saint-Petersburg State I.P Pavlov Medical University
Russian Federation


References

1. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001 Jun. 165(6 Pt 1): 1964-1966

2. Investor Presentation Q2 2016. Intuitive Surgical, 2016; 31 P

3. Отчет официального представителя компании Intuitive Surgical в России ООО «М.П.А. медицинские партнеры» за 2015 год [Электронный ресурс]. М., 2016; 1 электрон. опт. диск (CD-ROM) [Otchet ofitcial'nogo predstavitelia kompanii Intuitive Surgical v Rossii OOO «M.P.A. meditcinskie partnery» za 2015 god [E'lektronny'i' resurs]. M., 2016; 1 e'lektron. opt. disk (CD-ROM).]

4. Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 405-417

5. Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 418-430

6. Heidenreich A, Bastian BJ, Bellmunt J et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology 2012: 45-48

7. Зырянов АВ, Журавлев ОВ, Истокский КН и др. Робот-ассистированные операции в урологии с использованием системы «Da Vinci®». Уральский медицинский журнал 2008; (14): 10-12 [Zy'rianov AV, Zhuravlev OV, Istokskii' KN i dr. Robot-assistirovanny'e operatcii v urologii s ispol'zovaniem siste-my' «Da Vinci®». Ural'skii' meditcinskii' zhurnal 2008; (14): 10-12]

8. Пушкарь ДЮ, Раснер ПИ, Колонтарев КБ и др. Радикальная простатэктомия с роботической ассистенцией: анализ первых 80 случаев. Онкоурология 2010; (3): 3742 [Pushkar' DIu, Rasner PI, Kolontarev KB i dr. Radikal'naia prostate'ktomiia s roboticheskoi' assistentciei': analiz pervy'kh 80 sluchaev. Onkourologiia 2010; (3): 37-42]

9. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 1983; 4(5): 473-485

10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey. Annals of Surgery 2004; 240(2): 205-213

11. Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011; 59(5): 702-707

12. Пушкарь ДЮ, Колонтарев КБ. Робот-ассистированная радикальная простатэктомия: руководство. ГЭОТАР-Медиа, М., 2014; 384. [Pushkar' DIu, Kolontarev KB. Robot-assistirovan-naia radikal'naia prostate'ktomiia: rukovodstvo. GE'OTAR-Media, M., 2014; 384]

13. Sooriakumaran P, Srivastava A, Shariat SF. A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol 2014; 66(3): 450-456


Review

For citations:


Mosoyan M.S., Al-Shukri S.Kh., Ilin D.M. Five year experience in prostate cancer surgery on «Da Vinci» robot. Nephrology (Saint-Petersburg). 2016;20(4):103-106. (In Russ.)

Views: 909


ISSN 1561-6274 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9439 (Online)