← Return to Newer surgery technique
DiscussionComment receiving replies
@wheel1
@cbball
I totally agree, the expertise of the Surgeon is key. It is unfortunate there are patients before you that were part of the learning curve that brought that Surgeon to his level of expertise. I imagine today they might have state of the art simulator’s to assist Surgeons in their learning curve. The COE’s are certainly the places to first find the new cutting age technology. Here is something I found as more recent data comes out and I was two years back. I only share this information so everyone can be aware of what is out there. The evolution of prostate surgery is continuing to evolve.
Studies consistently show that Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP) is superior to standard anterior robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (S-RARP) regarding faster recovery of early urinary continence and improved, sometimes faster, return to erectile function. RS-RARP preserves key anterior anatomical structures, which improves functional outcomes while achieving comparable cancer control (oncological outcomes).
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
+4
Key Findings on RS-RARP Superiority
Faster Continence Recovery: RS-RARP patients demonstrate significantly higher early continence rates (at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months) compared to standard RARP, with some studies finding it reduces time to continence by over 80 days.
Improved Sexual Function: Multiple studies and meta-analyses suggest improved preservation of erectile function compared to the standard approach.
Quality of Life (QoL): Due to faster continence and potency recovery, patients report improved QoL scores.
Comparable Oncological Safety: Despite higher visibility challenges, studies indicate no significant differences in biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates between RS-RARP and standard RARP.
Lower Complications: Evidence suggests RS-RARP may lead to a lower incidence of postoperative hernia and similar or lower overall complication rates.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
+6
Limitations and Considerations
Learning Curve: RS-RARP involves a smaller, more challenging workspace, which may result in a steeper learning curve for surgeons.
Positive Surgical Margins (PSM): Some studies have suggested that RS-RARP could be associated with higher PSMs (specifically in patients with anterior lesions) compared to the standard approach, though not necessarily leading to worse functional outcomes or higher recurrence.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
+2
These results suggest that, particularly in the hands of experienced robotic surgeons, RS-RARP can offer superior functional results for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
Single-port (SP) RALP is generally considered better for patient recovery, offering less pain, shorter hospital stays, and superior cosmetic results compared to multiport (MP) RALP. Studies show SP-RALP provides similar cancer control and functional outcomes (continence/erectile function) while using a smaller 1-inch incision.
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
+4
Key Study Findings (SP-RALP vs. MP-RALP)
Patient Recovery: SP-RALP patients often report lower postoperative pain, reduced opioid use, and faster discharge (frequently < 24 hours).
Oncologic & Functional Outcomes: Early results show similar prostate cancer control and similar or better recovery of urinary and sexual function compared to multi-port.
Technical Aspects: SP-RALP offers improved precision in limited spaces, especially through extraperitoneal approaches.
Limitations: SP-RALP has a steeper learning curve for surgeons and generally higher procedure costs.
Perioperative: Some studies suggest SP-RALP may have shorter operative times but, in some cases, higher rates of positive surgical margins, though most studies show comparable results to multiport.
UroToday
UroToday
+7
Conclusion
While multi-port is more common and supported by two decades of data, single-port is rapidly proving superior in terms of postoperative pain and hospital stay duration, making it a highly attractive, less-invasive option for patients.
European Urology
European Urology
+3
Single-Port versus Multiple-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Dec 7, 2021 — Single-port robotic radical prostatectomy was associated with shorter hospital stays. Only 60.6% of single-port patients (109/180) required analgesia compared t...
faviconV2
PubMed Central (PMC) (.gov)
UroToday.pngEuropean Urology.pngfaviconV2.png
Replies to "@cbball I totally agree, the expertise of the Surgeon is key. It is unfortunate there are..."
Connect
@wheel1
I might also add that too many doctors in the prostate specific category only rely on 5-year studies. Standard of Care is safe. Unfortunately, it also means unnecessary. Within a 5-year period there have been multiple advances in PCa. Certainly QOL should ALWAYS be on top of everyone’s concerns. I elected for HDR brachytherapy with 20 sessions of EBRT, and NO ADT. I’m going to say it…”studies show” that there is a 4% increase at 10 and 15 years (89 vs 85). That extra 4% was not worth the QOL with ADT for 18-24 months. The first local oncologist said to at least take it for 60 days prior to my brachytherapy, nope! He didn’t want to be my oncologist anymore, and I couldn’t leave fast enough. The team at UVA listened to my concerns and made sure that the final decision was mine to make. Of course with my background, I was aware of what was going on. The worst patients for doctors are doctors. But, right next to them are educated patients that do their own research. I feel sorry for men that just go with what the doctor says. I would stress, what’s the doctor’s motivation? We are in a litigious environment and stepping out of line is frowned upon. Go to a COE and see if you qualify for a new procedure that is being performed. Ethics plays a huge factor. I have a 93-year-old uncle retired cardiologist-internist-intensivist who’s fraction rate was falling (mitral valve prolapse). He knew a specialist that could do a minimally invasive procedure to correct it. There was a high risk/reward. It was done with great success. Not too many doc’s or hospitals would even allow it. That further emphasizes advocacy with any specialty. Everyone who reads this should take a step back and determine what is right for you. Good luck and God bless.