A new method for posterior pelvic reconstruction with autologous tissue in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
- Authors: Mosoyan M.S.1,2, Shelipanov D.A.1, Fedorov D.A.1, Aysina N.A.1, Vasil'ev A.A.1
-
Affiliations:
- Almazov National Medical Research Centre
- Academician I.P. Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
- Issue: Vol 12, No 1 (2022)
- Pages: 33-40
- Section: Original articles
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/uroved/article/view/89659
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/uroved89659
- ID: 89659
Cite item
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the improvement of surgical techniques and a significant improvement in the functional results of surgical interventions for prostate cancer urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains the most important factor that negatively affects the quality of life of patients.
AIM: Evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of a new technique for posterior reconstruction using autologous tissue an endopelvic fascia flap in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 28 patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent modified robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at one medical center were included in the study. During the operation after removal of the prostate a posterior reconstruction of the small pelvis was performed by excising a flap of the endopelvic fascia on one side, placing it behind the bladder neck and urethrocystoanastomosis, followed by fixing this flap to a similar structure on the opposite side in the form of a loop, strengthening the anastomosis from behind. The main intraoperative parameters, oncological and functional results were evaluated.
RESULTS: Analysis of the results of the study confirmed the high efficiency of the proposed surgical technique. The average operation duration was 145 min (120–170 min), average console time was 68 min (55–102 min), the average duration of the posterior reconstruction stage was 6 min (3.5–8.5 min). Average intraoperative blood loss was 55 ml (25–175 ml). The urethral catheter was removed on the 7th day after the operation in all patients. During surgery there were no conversions and any complications of III–V groups according to the Clavien – Dindo classification. Immediate urinary continence was noted in 23 (82.1%) patients (82,1%), early urinary continence was noted in 26 (92.8%) patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study showed that the use of a new technique for posterior reconstruction in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using endopelvic fascia flaps is effective and safe, showing good early functional results, in particular, immediate urinary continence without compromising oncological outcomes.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Mkrtich S. Mosoyan
Almazov National Medical Research Centre; Academician I.P. Pavlov First St. Petersburg State Medical University
Email: moso03@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3639-6863
SPIN-code: 5716-9089
Scopus Author ID: 57208982777
Dr. Sci. (Med), Head of the Department of Urology with the Course of Robotic Surgery and the Clinic, Head of the Center for Robotic Surgery, Professor of the Department of Urology
Russian Federation, 2, Akkuratova St., Saint Petersburg, 191014; 6-8, Saint-PetersburgDenis A. Shelipanov
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Email: shelipanov_da@almazovcentre.ru
Сand. Sci. (Med.), Head of Urology Division
Russian Federation, 2, Akkuratova St., Saint Petersburg, 191014Dmitriy A. Fedorov
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Email: tvoiurolog@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6371-4620
Assistant of the Department of Urology with the Course of Robotic Surgery and the Clinic
Russian Federation, 2, Akkuratova St., Saint Petersburg, 191014Nadezhda A. Aysina
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Email: aysina1984@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 3168-2228
Assistant of the Department of Urology with the Course of Robotic Surgery and the Clinic
Russian Federation, 2, Akkuratova St., Saint Petersburg, 191014Artem A. Vasil'ev
Almazov National Medical Research Centre
Author for correspondence.
Email: scapoflow@gmail.com
Assistant of the Department of Urology with the Course of Robotic Surgery and the Clinic
Russian Federation, 2, Akkuratova St., Saint Petersburg, 191014References
- Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer. 2019;144(8):1941–1953. doi: 10.1002/ijc.31937
- Starinskii VV, Kaprin AD, Petrova GV. Sostoyanie onkologicheskoi pomoshchi naseleniyu Rossii v 2017 godu. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena filial FGBU “NMITS radiologiI” Minzdrava Rossii, 2018. 239 p. (In Russ.)
- Miller KD, Fidler-Benaoudia M, Keegan TH, et al. Cancer statistics for adolescents and young adults, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(6):443–459. doi: 10.3322/caac.21637
- Dell’Oglio P, Mottrie A, Mazzone E. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy vs. open radical prostatectomy: latest evidences on perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes. Curr Opin Urol. 2020;30(1):73–78. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000688
- Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Kattan MW. Predicting an optimal outcome after radical prostatectomy: the trifecta nomogram. J Urol. 2008;179(6):2207–2210. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.106
- Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, et al. Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2011;59(5):702–707. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.032
- Cambio AJ, Evans CP. Minimising postoperative incontinence following radical prostatectomy: considerations and evidence. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):903–913. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.009
- Kojima Y, Takahashi N, Haga N, et al. Urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: pathophysiology and intraoperative techniques to improve surgical outcome. Int J Urol. 2013;20(11):1052–1063. doi: 10.1111/iju.12214
- 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(3):405–417. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045
- Porpiglia F, Fiori C, Bertolo R, et al. Five-year Outcomes for a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Laparoscopic and Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4(1):80–86. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.007
- Wang T, Wang Q, Wang S. A Meta-analysis of Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy. Open Med (Wars). 2019;14(1):485–490. doi: 10.1515/med-2019-0052
- Du Y, Long Q, Guan B, et al. Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:272–287. doi: 10.12659/msm.907092
- Mosoyan MS, Ilin DM. Early continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Translational medicine. 2018;4(6): 53–61. (In Russ.) doi: 10.18705/2311-4495-2017-4-6-53-61
- Mosoyan M, Ilin D, Fedorov D. Preserving of periprostatic anatomy influences the early continence rate more than preserving of neurovascular bundles: A comparative study of three robot-assisted radical prostatectomy variations. Eur Urol Suppl. 2018;17(2):e1930. doi: 10.1016/S1569-9056(18)32335-2
- Walz J, Epstein JI, Ganzer R, et al. A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy of the prostate related to optimisation of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy: an update. Eur Urol. 2016;70(2):301–311. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.01.026
- Patent RUS № 2725852 C1 MPK A61V 17/00/ 06.07.20. Byul. № 19. Mosoyan MS, Fedorov DA. Sposob provedeniya robot-assistirovannoi laparoskopicheskoi radikal’noi prostatehktomii s zadnei rekonstruktsiei malogo taza pri lechenii raka predstatel’noi zhelezy. (In Russ.) Available from: https://patents.s3.yandex.net/RU2732707C1_20200921.pdf
- Rocco B, Gregori A, Stener S, et al. Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;51(4):996–1003. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.014
- Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B. Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(3):472–478. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.06.007
- Hurtes X, Rouprêt M, Vaessen C, et al. Anterior suspension combined with posterior reconstruction during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy improves early return of urinary continence: a prospective randomized multicentre trial. BJU Int. 2012;110(6): 875–883. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10849.x
- Student V Jr, Vidlar A, Grepl M, et al. Advanced Reconstruction of Vesicourethral Support (ARVUS) during Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: One-year Functional Outcomes in a Two-group Randomised Controlled Trial. Eur Urol. 2017;71(5):822–830. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.032
- Porpiglia F, Bertolo R, Manfredi M, et al. Total Anatomical Reconstruction During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Implications on Early Recovery of Urinary Continence. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):485–495. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.005
- Hamada A, Razdan S, Etafy MH, et al. Early return of continence in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using modified maximal urethral length preservation technique. J Endourol. 2014;28(8):930–938. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0794
- Freire MP, Weinberg AC, Lei Y, et al. Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6): 972–980. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2009.09.017