RESUMEN

Objetivo: Analizar las características clínico-quirúrgicas de 300 pacientes con cáncer de próstata operados con cirugía robótica y el impacto de la experiencia del cirujano en los resultados oncológicos. Material y métodos: Se realizó un análisis retrospectivo de 300 prostatectomías radicales asistidas con robot realizadas todas por el mismo cirujano. Se dividieron los pacientes en 3 grupos de 100 en orden cronológico, de acuerdo a fecha de la cirugía. Todos los pacientes presentaban estadio clínico órgano-confinado. Ningún paciente recibió hormonobloqueo neoadyuvante. Se analizan en cada grupo las variables que, a priori, impactarían en la presencia de márgenes quirúrgicos positivos (MQP). Finalmente se subdividió cada grupo en pacientes con enfermedad órgano-confinada y pacientes con enfermedad extraprostática y se analizaron los MQP. Resultados: Los grupos fueron homogéneos entre sí. La incidencia de pT2 y pT3 o más fue similar entre grupos (p = 0,691). La incidencia global de MQP fue del 21%, 28% en el primer grupo, del 20% en el segundo grupo y del 16% en el tercer grupo (p = 0,108). Se observó una tendencia de descenso lineal significativa (p = 0,024). En pacientes pT2 la incidencia global de MQP fue de 16,6%, con un descenso significativo entre los grupos (p = 0,009). La diferencia significativa fue hallada entre el grupo 1 y el grupo 3 (p = 0,004). En pacientes pT3 o más la incidencia global de MQP fue del 27,7% sin evidencia de descenso significativo (p = 0,978). Conclusiones: Hemos encontrado una reducción significativa de los MQP relacionados con la experiencia del cirujano para los pacientes con enfermedad órgano-confinada, y no así para los pacientes pT3

Objective: The aim of this study is to analyze the clinical and surgical features of patients who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at our institution, and the impact of the surgeon's experience in the oncological results related to pathological stage. Material and methods: An analysis of 300 RARP consecutively performed by the same urologist was conducted. Patients were divided into 3 groups of 100 patients in chronological order, according to surgery date. All patients had organ-confined clinical stage. Variables which could impact in positive margins rates were analyzed. Finally, positive surgical margins (PSM) in regard to pathological stage and surgeon's experience were compared and analyzed. Results: No significant differences were found in variables which could impact in PSM rates. The overall PSM rate was 21%, with 28% in the first group, 20% in the second, and 16% in the third (P = 0.108). Significant lineal decreasing tendency was observed (P = 0.024). In pT2 patients, the overall PSM rate was 16.6%, with 27%, 13.8%, and 7.3% in each group respectively (P = .009). A significant difference was found between group 1 and group 3 (P = 0.004). In pT3 patients, the surgeon's experience was not significantly associated with margin reductions with an overall PSM rate of 27.7% (28.2%, 28.6%, and 26.7% in each group respectively). Conclusions: Clinical and surgical features in our patients did not vary over time. We found a significant reduction of PSM related to surgeon's experience in pT2 patients. Contrariwise, the margin status remained stable despite increasing experience in pT3 patients

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to analyze the clinical and surgical features of patients who underwent robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) at our institution, and the impact of the surgeon's experience in the oncological results related to pathological stage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An analysis of 300 RARP consecutively performed by the same urologist was conducted. Patients were divided into 3 groups of 100 patients in chronological order, according to surgery date. All patients had organ-confined clinical stage. Variables which could impact in positive margins rates were analyzed. Finally, positive surgical margins (PSM) in regard to pathological stage and surgeon's experience were compared and analyzed. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in variables which could impact in PSM rates. The overall PSM rate was 21%, with 28% in the first group, 20% in the second, and 16% in the third (P = .108). Significant lineal decreasing tendency was observed (P = .024). In pT2 patients, the overall PSM rate was 16.6%, with 27%, 13.8%, and 7.3% in each group respectively (P = .009). A significant difference was found between group 1 and group 3 (P = .004). In pT3 patients, the surgeon's experience was not significantly associated with margin reductions with an overall PSM rate of 27.7% (28.2%, 28.6%, and 26.7% in each group respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and surgical features in our patients did not vary over time. We found a significant reduction of PSM related to surgeon's experience in pT2 patients. Contrariwise, the margin status remained stable despite increasing experience in pT3 patients.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

To evaluate whether robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (dvRP) provides adequate local control of the disease, incidence of positive surgical margins (PSMs) obtained with dvRP was compared with that of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and with that of open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) performed in a single institution by the same surgeons. We also studied whether neurovascular bundle preservation modified PSM rates. The records were retrospectively reviewed from electronic medical data, and three groups of 100 patients were organized. Group 1 included 100 patients who underwent RRP prior to the incorporation of minimally invasive techniques. Group 2 included the first 100 patients who underwent LRP, and group 3 was made up of the first 100 patients who underwent dvRP. All surgical specimens were analyzed by the same pathologist. We used the technique described by Patel et al. for dvRP. LRP was performed using a five-trocar extraperitoneal approach as previously published by the authors. RRP was performed using retrograde dissection as described by Walsh et al. The final decision of preserving neurovascular bundles was made during surgery. Using D'Amico's risk classification, the dvRP group had a lower percentage of patients with low risk (dvRP versus LRP p = 0.017; dvRP versus RRP p = 0.0108). No statistically significant differences were found within high- and intermediate-risk groups. A higher percentage of patients with pT3 disease was found in the dvRP group compared with the RRP group (p = 0.0408). There were no statistically significant differences regarding PSMs among groups (RRP: 25, LRP: 14, dvRP: 18), although when we compared the total number of PSMs we found that the dvRP group had 18 PSMs versus 21 and 50 PSMs for LRP and RRP, respectively. All three groups had more PSMs located posterolaterally. There was a higher percentage of nerve-sparing procedures in the dvRP group (dvRP: 91 patients, LRP: 47 patients, RRP: 5 patients) (p < 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were found in the PSM rates between the three techniques analyzed. The number of nerve-sparing procedures in the dvRP group was statistically higher. However, this preservation did not modify PSM rates.