Abstract

PEREIRA ARIAS, J.G. et al. Complications and incidences in our first 250 robotic radical prostatectomies. Actas Urol Esp [online]. 2010, vol.34, n.5, pp.428-439. ISSN 0210-4806.

Objective: To review the incidence of and analyze the factors contributing to perioperative complications in patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy in our experience of 250 procedures. Materials y methods: An analytical, descriptive, retrospective study was conducted of 250 consecutive patients who underwent robotic radical prostatectomy during a period of three years and two months (January 06-March 09). Data recorded included age, preoperative Gleason grade and PSA, and prostate volume. All procedures were performed by three surgeons through a transperitoneal approach using a four-arm daVinci robotic system. Microsoft Excel support was used. Surgical variables recorded included setup time, console operation time, mean bleeding, transfusion rate, hospital stay, and urethral catheterization time. Incidences and intraoperative and postoperative late and early complications in these patients were reviewed. Results: Demographic data recorded included: mean age, 61.5 years (47-74); mean preoperative PSA, 8.18ng/mL (2.6-34ng/mL); mean Gleason grade, 6.8 (2-9); and mean prostate volume 34.9mL (12-124). Surgical variables recorded included: console setup time, 10.8min (6-47): console operation time, 125min (90-315); mean bleeding, 150mL (50-1150); and a 3.6% (9/250) transfusion rate. There was no peroperative mortality, and no conversion to open or laparoscopic surgery was required. Ninety-six percent of patients (240/250) had an adequate postoperative course, with a mean hospital stay of 4.2 days (3-35) and urinary catheter removal after 8 (5-28) days. Overall complication rate was 10.6%, with major complications occurring in only 3.2% of patients (8/250) and consisting of five surgical and three medical complications. Repeat surgery was required in 1.6% of cases (4/250) due to late peritonitis for cecal perforation, bleeding from epigastric artery, perineal percutaneous drainage of retrovesical hematoma, and pelvic urinoma after bladder catheter dislodgment. One patient required selective arterial embolization for persistent hematuria due to vesical artery fistula. Medical complications included acute renal failure due to thrombotic purpura resolved with hemodialysis in one patient and late pulmonary embolism managed with anticoagulation in two patients. Robot malfunction with no surgical implications or need for surgical conversion occurred in four patients (1.6%). Surgical maneuvers required to resolve late complications included one umbilical hernia repair, one meatotomy for meatal stenosis, one bladder neck endoscopic incision after contracture, and one endoscopic extraction of Hem-o-lok and vascular clip following erosion-migration into the bladder. Conclusions: Robotic radical prostatectomy is a safe and reproducible procedure with optimal functional and oncological results, a shorter learning curve, greater comfort and vision for surgeons, and a complication rate similar to and even better than reported for open and laparoscopic surgery series. Complications decrease with the learning curve, but surgical team experience continues to be the key factor to achieve better results.

Keywords : Robotic radical prostatectomy; Surgical complications; Incidence.

        · abstract in Spanish     · text in Spanish     · Spanish ( pdf )