Determining the learning curve for robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy in surgeons familiar with robotic retropubic prostatectomy

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the learning curve for robot assisted laparoscopic radical perineal prostatectomy (robotic RPP) for surgeons who already perform transperitoneal robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Material and Methods: A total of initial 120 robotic RPP cases were analyzed for perioperative data from single surgeon performing to determine the learning curve. Perioperative all data are collected including operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, complications and positive surgical margin results. The consecutive patients were classified into four groups: cases 1–30 (Group 1), cases 31–60 (Group 2), cases 61–90 (Group 3) and cases 91-120 (Group 4).
Results: Median age of 61.4 (46-73) years and PSA level was 8.4 (2-32). Mean operative time was 143.2 minutes, and the length of surgery progressively decreased over time (from group 1 to group 4; P<001). Mean console time was 90.6 minutes and significant differences was found group 3 vs. 4 (p=0.047). The mean length of stay was 1.6 days, and significantly decrease after 60 cases over time (P<0.001). Mean removal of the urethral catheter significantly earlier in group 4 (P1vs4=0.012). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to pathologic tumor Gleason score, positive surgical margine of the specimen and complications.
Conclusions: This study suggests that surgical qualification for robotic RPP can be obtained at least after 90 cases for an experienced robotic surgeon.

Keywords: Prostatectomy, Robot-Assisted, Perineal, Learning Curve, Prostate Cancer

---

• View
• Download

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the learning curve for robot assisted laparoscopic radical perineal prostatectomy (robotic RPP) for surgeons who already perform transperitoneal robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.
Material and Methods: A total of initial 120 robotic RPP cases were analyzed for perioperative data from single surgeon performing to determine the learning curve. Perioperative all data are collected including operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, complications and positive surgical margin results. The consecutive patients were classified into four groups: cases 1–30 (Group 1), cases 31–60 (Group 2), cases 61–90 (Group 3) and cases 91-120 (Group 4).
Results: Median age of 61.4 (46-73) years and PSA level was 8.4 (2-32). Mean operative time was 143.2 minutes, and the length of surgery progressively decreased over time (from group 1 to group 4; P<001). Mean console time was 90.6 minutes and significant differences was found group 3 vs. 4 (p=0.047). The mean length of stay was 1.6 days, and significantly decrease after 60 cases over time (P<0.001). Mean removal of the urethral catheter significantly earlier in group 4 (P1vs4=0.012). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to pathologic tumor Gleason score, positive surgical margine of the specimen and complications.
Conclusions: This study suggests that surgical qualification for robotic RPP can be obtained at least after 90 cases for an experienced robotic surgeon.

Keywords: Prostatectomy, Robot-Assisted, Perineal, Learning Curve, Prostate Cancer

gl_12520230258859.png

gl_125202303580.png

Resources

• 1.Culp, M.B., et al. Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur Urol, 2020. 77: 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.08.005
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 2.Young HH (1945) The cure of cancer of the prostate by radical perineal prostatectomy (prostate-seminal vesiculectomy): history, literature and statistics of Young’s operation. J Urol 53:188–256 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)70130-9
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 3.Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JD (1983) Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 4:473 https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.2990040506
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 4.Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L et al (2000) Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol 2000 Sep 10(4) 520–523
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 5.Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87:408–410. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.00115.x
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 6.Herrell SD (2005) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: what is the learning curve? Urology 66(5 suppl): 105–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.084
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 7.Gillitzer R (2004) Specific complications of radical perineal prostatectomy: a single institution study of more than 600 cases. J Urol 172(1):124–128. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000128570.39667.5e
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 8.Saito S, Murakami G (2003) Radical perineal prostatectomy: a novel approach for lymphadenectomy from perineal incision. J Urol 170:1298–1300. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000084329.75188.e6
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 9.Laydner H, Akca O, Autorino R, et al. Perineal robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: feasibility study in the cadaver model. J Endourol 2014;28:1479-1486. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0244
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 10.Kaouk JH, Akca O, Zargar H, Caputo P, Ramirez D, Andrade H, Albayrak S, Laydner H, Angermeir K (2016) Descriptive technique and initial results for robotic radical perineal prostatectomy. Urology 94:129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.02.063
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 11.Janoff DM, Parra RO. Contemporary appraisal of radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 2005;173:1863-1870. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000161483.65619.b3
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 12.Imperatore V, Cantiello F, Fusco F, et al. Radical perineal prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: surgical and functional outcomes. Uro Int 2011;86:140-145. https://doi.org/10.1159/000317326
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 13.Tugcu V, Akca O, Simsek A et al (2017) Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: first experience of 15 cases. Turk J Urol 43(4):476–483. https://doi.org/10.5152%2Ftud.2017.35488
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 14.Tugcu V, Eksi M, Sahin S, Colakoglu Y, Simsek A, Evren I et al. Robot-assisted radical perineal prostatectomy: a review of 95 cases. BJU Int 2020; 125: 573–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15018
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 15.Guillonneau B, Rozet F, Barret E, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Assessment after 240 procedures. Urol Clin North Am 2001;28:189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1040-8428(02)00024-0
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 16.Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M, et al. Modular training for residents with no prior experience with open pelvic surgery in endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2006;49:491–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1569-9056(06)60135-8
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 17.Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting - the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 2005; 174(1): 269-272. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000162082.12962.40
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 18.Kaouk J Bertolo (2019) Single-site robotic platform in clinical practice: first cases in the USA. Minevra Urol Nefrl. 2019 Jun;71(3):294-298. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03384-8
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 19.Kim EJ, Kaldany A, Licht B, Single-Port Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Short-Term Outcomes and Learning Curve, J Endourol 2022 Oct; 36(10):1285-1289. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2021.0885
  PUBMED CROSSREF
• 20.Bock D, Nyberg M, Lantz A, Carlsson SV, Sjoberg DD, Carlsson S, Stranne J, Steineck G, Wiklund P, Haglind E, Bjartell A. Learning curve for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a large prospective multicentre study. Scand J Urol. 2022 Jun;56(3):182-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.2022.2070274
  PUBMED CROSSREF