Top

BMC Urology

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Prostatectomy | Research

The application of Foley catheter traction technique in extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Authors: Xiao-Lu Jiang, Kui OuYang, Rui Yang, Jia-Ning Sun, Feng Zhang, Hong-Wei Zhao

Published in: BMC Urology | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Objectives

To describe a technique to improve exposure of prostate during extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (EP-RARP).

Material and methods

From March 2020 to June 2022, a total of 41 patients with prior intra-abdominal surgery underwent EP-RARP. Twenty-three patients improved exposure by traction of prostate through urinary catheter. The catheter traction prostatectomy (CTP) group was compared with the standard prostatectomy (SP) group using three robotic arms (18 patients) in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, positive surgical margin rate, the recovery rate of urinary continence, Gleason score and postoperative hospital stays. Differences were considered significant when P < 0.05.

Results

The operative time was lower in the CTP group (109.63 min vs. 143.20 min; P < 0.001). EBL in the CTP group was 178.26 ± 30.70 mL, and in the standard prostatectomy group, it was 347.78 ± 53.53 mL (P < 0.001). No significant differences with regard to postoperative hospital stay, recovery rate of urinary continence, catheterization time and positive surgical margin were observed between both groups. No intraoperative complications occurred in all the patients. After 6 months of follow-up, the Post-op Detectable prostate specific antigen was similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

CTP is a feasible, safe, and valid procedure in EP-RARP. Application of CTP improved the exposure of prostate, reduced operative time and blood loss in comparison with the conventional procedure.

Available only for authorised users

Coughlin GD, Yaxley JW, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30357-7.

Binder J, Kramer W. Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001; https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.x.

de Vermandois JAR, Cochetti G, Zingaro MD, Santoro A, Panciarola M, Boni A, et al. Evaluation of surgical site infection in Mini-invasive urological surgery. Open Med (Wars). 2019; https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2019-0081.

Ball MW, Reese AC, Mettee LZ, Pavlovich CP. Safety of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy in patients with prior abdominopelvic or inguinal surgery. J Endourol. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0449.

Lee JY, Diaz RR, Cho KS, Choi YD. Meta-analysis of transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2013.0265.

Horovitz D, Feng C, Messing EM, Joseph JV. Extraperitoneal vs Transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the setting of prior abdominal or pelvic surgery. J Endourol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0706.

Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.

Gandaglia G, Fossati N, Zaffuto E, Bandini M, Dell'Oglio P, Bravi CA, 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; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.049.

Paladini A, Cochetti G, Felici G, Russo M, Saqer E, Cari L, et al. Complications of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: a single high-volume center experience. Front Surg. 2023; https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1157528.

10.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.046.

11.

Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Carroll PR, Costello A, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045.

12.

Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC, Artibani W, Costello A, Eastham JA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.044.

13.

Uy M, Cassim R, Kim J, Hoogenes J, Shayegan B, Matsumoto ED. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2022; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01245-0.

14.

Chung JS, Kim WT, Ham WS, Yu HS, Chae Y, Chung SH, et al. Comparison of oncological results, functional outcomes, and complications for transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a single surgeon's experience. J Endourol. 2011; https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0222.

15.

Jacobs BL, Montgomery JS, Dunn RL, Weizer AZ, Miller DC, Wood DP, et al. A comparison of extraperitoneal and intraperitoneal approaches for robotic prostatectomy. Surg Innov. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350611429028.

16.

Akand M, Erdogru T, Avci E, Ates M. Transperitoneal versus extraperitoneal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective single surgeon randomized comparative study. Int J Urol. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12854.

17.

Kaouk J, Aminsharifi A, Wilson CA, Sawczyn G, Garisto J, Francavilla S, et al. Extraperitoneal versus Transperitoneal single port robotic radical prostatectomy: a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1097/ju.0000000000000700.

18.

Cochetti GDZM, Ciarletti S, Paladini A, Felici G, Stivalini D, Cellini V. Mearini E new evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: a single center experience with PERUSIA technique. Appl Sci. 2021; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041513.

19.

Horovitz D, Feng C, Messing EM, Joseph JV. Extraperitoneal vs. transperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with a history of prior inguinal hernia repair with mesh. J Robot Surg. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0678-0.

20.

Esposito MP, Ilbeigi P, Ahmed M, Lanteri V. Use of fourth arm in da Vinci robot-assisted extraperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy: novel technique. Urology. 2005; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.03.061.

21.

Pereira R, Joshi A, Roberts M, Yaxley J, Vela I. Open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Transl Androl Urol. 2020; https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2019.09.15.

22.

Scarcia M, Zazzara M, Divenuto L, Cardo G, Portoghese F, Romano M, et al. Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a high-volume surgical center experience. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2018; https://doi.org/10.23736/s0393-2249.18.03114-4.

23.

Ploussard G, de la Taille A, Moulin M, Vordos D, Hoznek A, Abbou CC, et al. Comparisons of the perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes after robot-assisted versus pure extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.049.

24.

Manfredi M, Checcucci E, Fiori C, Garrou D, Aimar R, Amparore D, et al. Total anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: focus on urinary continence recovery and related complications after 1000 procedures. BJU Int. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14716.

25.

Checcucci E, Pecoraro A, S DEC, Manfredi M, Amparore D, Aimar R, et al. The importance of anatomical reconstruction for continence recovery after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and pooled analysis from referral centers. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021; doi:https://doi.org/10.23736/s2724-6051.20.04146-6.

26.

Porpiglia F, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, De Luca S, Checcucci E, Morra I, et al. Total anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications on early recovery of urinary continence. Eur Urol. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.005.

Title: The application of Foley catheter traction technique in extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
Authors: Xiao-Lu Jiang
Kui OuYang
Rui Yang
Jia-Ning Sun
Feng Zhang
Hong-Wei Zhao
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Prostatectomy
Prostatectomy
Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Published in: BMC Urology / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2490
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-023-01377-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The application of Foley catheter traction technique in extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Guidance of adjuvant instillation in intermediate-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer by drug screens in patient derived organoids: a single center, open-label, phase II trial

Efficacy of fosfomycin compared to second generation cephalosporin flumarin as antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: a single center retrospective study

Retroperitoneal urothelial carcinoma arising after bladder diverticulectomy: a case report

An innovative method for occluding the urethral meatus and accessing urethra strictures in retrograde urethrography in males

Clinical features and Surgical Outcome of Clear Cell Papillary Renal Cell Tumor: result from a prospective cohort

De-epithelialized overlap flap to secure urethroplasty in second stage hypospadias repair: revisiting the Smith technique