Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 2/2006

01-06-2006 | Topic Paper

Development of robotic program: an Asian experience

Authors: R. M. Sahabudin, T. Arni, N. Ashani, K. Arumuga, S. Rajenthran, S. Murali, V. Patel, A. Hemal, M. Menon

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 2/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Robotic surgery was started in the Department of Urology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, in April 2004. We present our experience in developing the program and report the results of our first 50 cases of robotic radical prostatectomy. A three-arm da Vinci™ robotic system was installed in our hospital in March 2004. Prior to installation, the surgeons underwent training at various centers in the United States and Paris. The operating theatre was renovated to house the system. Subsequently, the initial few cases were done with the help of proctors. Data were prospectively collected on all patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Fifty patients underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy from March 2004 to June 2005. Their ages ranged from 52 to 75 years, (average age 60.2 years). PSA levels ranged from 2.5 to 35 ng/ml (mean 10.6 ng/ml). Prostate volume ranged from 18 to 130 cc (average 32.4 cc). Average operating time for the first 20 cases was 4 h and for the next 30 cases was 2.5 h. Patients were discharged 1–3 days post-operatively. Catheters were removed on the fifth day following a cystogram. The positive margin rate as defined by the presence of cancer cells at the inked margin was 30%. Twenty-one patients had T1c disease and one had T1b on clinical staging. Of these, two were apical margin positive. Twenty-six patients had T2 disease and eight of them were apical margin positive. Two patients had T3 disease, one of whom was apical margin positive. Five patients (10%) had PSA recurrence. Five patients had a poorly differentiated carcinoma and the rest had Gleason 6 or 7. Eighty percent of the patients were continent on follow-up at 3 months. Of those who were potent before the surgery, 50% were potent at 3–6 months. The robotic surgery program was successfully implemented at our center on the lines of a structured program, developed at Vattikuti Urology Institute (VUI). We succeeded in creating a team and safely implemented the robotic program in our system. Adequate funding and extensive training followed by a short term proctoring are essential for this implementation.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A (2004) Vattikuti Institute protatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localised carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am 31:701–717CrossRefPubMed Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody JO, Kaul S, Bhandari A, Hemal A (2004) Vattikuti Institute protatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localised carcinoma of the prostate: experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am 31:701–717CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotics surgery, telepresence and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. SurgEndosc 16(10):1389–1402 Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotics surgery, telepresence and telementoring. Review of early clinical results. SurgEndosc 16(10):1389–1402
3.
go back to reference Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, Vallancien G (2002) Laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168:945–949CrossRefPubMed Menon M, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Sarle R, Hemal A, Peabody JO, Vallancien G (2002) Laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol 168:945–949CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Steers WD, Le Bean S, Cardella J, Fulmer B (2004) Establishing a robotics program. Urol Clin North Am 31:773–780PubMedCrossRef Steers WD, Le Bean S, Cardella J, Fulmer B (2004) Establishing a robotics program. Urol Clin North Am 31:773–780PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Menon M (2003) Tewari A and Vattikutti Institute prostatectomy team, robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuty Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology suppl 61:15 Menon M (2003) Tewari A and Vattikutti Institute prostatectomy team, robotic radical prostatectomy and the Vattikuty Urology Institute technique: an interim analysis of results and technical points. Urology suppl 61:15
6.
go back to reference Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; the Montsouris experience. J Urol 163:418PubMedCrossRef Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; the Montsouris experience. J Urol 163:418PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Menon M et al (2003) A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in our institution. BJU Int 92:205–210CrossRefPubMed Tewari A, Shrivastava A, Menon M et al (2003) A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in our institution. BJU Int 92:205–210CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Weider JA, Soloway MS (1998) Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 160:299–315PubMedCrossRef Weider JA, Soloway MS (1998) Incidence, etiology, location, prevention and treatment of positive surgical margins after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 160:299–315PubMedCrossRef
9.
10.
go back to reference Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Robert A Edwards, David I Lee, Douglas W Skarecky (2004) Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce PT2 positive margins. Urology 64(6):1224–1228PubMedCrossRef Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Robert A Edwards, David I Lee, Douglas W Skarecky (2004) Robotic radical prostatectomy: a technique to reduce PT2 positive margins. Urology 64(6):1224–1228PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Vipul R Patel, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 274:269–272CrossRef Vipul R Patel, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 274:269–272CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ahlering TE, Starrecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV (2003) Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: Initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170:1738–1741CrossRefPubMed Ahlering TE, Starrecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV (2003) Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: Initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170:1738–1741CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Development of robotic program: an Asian experience
Authors
R. M. Sahabudin
T. Arni
N. Ashani
K. Arumuga
S. Rajenthran
S. Murali
V. Patel
A. Hemal
M. Menon
Publication date
01-06-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 2/2006
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-006-0069-z

Other articles of this Issue 2/2006

World Journal of Urology 2/2006 Go to the issue