Abstract
Purpose:
To analyze and compare the safety and peri-operative outcomes of fellowship-trained robotic surgeons (FEL) and experienced open surgeons (OE) incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) into practice.
Materials and Methods:
Multiinstitutional, prospective data were collected on the first 30 RALP performed by FEL and OE (defined as over 1000 prostatectomies) incorporating RALP into practice. Morbidity from the peri-operative course was evaluated as were operative outcomes. The second 30 cases from the OE group were evaluated to assess for improvement with experience.
Results:
There were no rectal injuries or death in either group. Blood transfusion rates did not differ between the two groups (2% vs. 3%, p = 0.65). Open conversion occurred three times in the OE group but only within the first 30 cases. In the first 30 cases FEL had statistically lower rates of positive margins (15% vs. 34%, p = 0.008) and decreased likelihood of prolonged urethral catheter leakage (5% vs. 19%, p = 0.009). The FEL group had lower rates of failure of prostate-specific antigen to nadir <0.15 ng/mL (2% vs. 10%, p = 0.056). There were no reoperations in the FEL group but present in 2% of the OE group initially. The second 30 cases of the OE group noted a statistical improvement for all parameters with margin rates and the requirement of prolonged catheterization becoming statistically comparable to those of the FEL group.
Conclusions:
OE can safely incorporate RALP into practice and achieve outcomes comparable to FEL quickly. As anticipated, FEL achieve these endpoints earlier in their practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.