Learning Curve and Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in 200 Initial Japanese Cases by a Single Surgeon

Abstract

Purpose:

The aim of the present study was to investigate the learning curve and perioperative outcomes in 200 consecutive patients with prostate cancer who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

Patients and Methods:

Between August 2006 and August 2011, 200 patients with prostate cancer underwent RARP and were enrolled in this study. We prospectively collected the demographic data and analyzed the pathologic and functional outcomes. The operative outcomes analyzed were total operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), positive surgical margin (PSM), incontinence, and perioperative complications. We also evaluated the relationship between the surgeon's experience and operative variables.

Results:

The sloping learning curve for this surgeon showed that total operative time was strongly correlated with the accumulation of experience for the initial 25 cases (|r_s|=0.71, P<0.001). The average EBL was not strongly correlated with additional experience (|r_s|<0.7). The PSM rate for the first 50 cases was significantly higher than that of the next 150 cases (34.8% vs 19.4%, P=0.035). The complication rate among the first 50 patients was significantly higher than that among the remaining 150 patients (32% vs 12.7%, P=0.002). The incontinence rate at 12 months was significantly higher for the first 100 cases compared with that for the next 100 cases (9.0% vs 1.0%, P=0.009). For the surgeon to optimize total operative time, PSM rate, complication rate, and incontinence rate, slope learning curves of 25, 50, 50, and 100 cases were needed.

Conclusions:

The functional and pathologic results of this minimally invasive procedure seemed to be promising. Distinct learning curves were observed with respect to operative time, PSM, complication rate, and incontinence rate. Exposure to 100 surgeries would be necessary for a surgeon to adequately master the required skills.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Jemal

, Siegel

, Xu

, Ward

. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin, 2010; 60:277–300.

Gondo

, Yoshioka

, Hashimoto

et al. The powerful impact of double-layered posterior rhabdosphincter reconstruction on early recovery of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol, 2012; 26:1159–1164.

Coelho

, Rocco

, Patel

et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol, 2010; 24:2003–2015.

Schuessler

, Schulam

, Clayman

, Kavoussi

. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Initial short-term experience. Urology, 1997; 50:854–857.

Abbou

, Salomon

, Hoznek

et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: preliminary results. Urology, 2000; 55:630–634.

Rassweiler

, Sentker

, Seemann

et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: An analysis of the first 180 cases. J Urol, 2001; 166:2101–2108.

Guillonneau

, el-Fettouh

, Baumert

et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Oncological evaluation after 1,000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J Urol, 2003; 169:1261–1266.

Mottrie

, Van Migem

, De Naeyer

et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Oncologic and functional results of 184 cases. Eur Urol, 2007; 52:746–750.

Zorn

, Gautam

, Shalhav

et al. Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: Recommendations of the society of urologic robotic surgeons. J Urol, 2009; 182:1126–1132.

10.

Orvieto

, Patel

. Evolution of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Surg, 2009; 98:76–88.

11.

Patel

, Tully

, Holmes

, Lindsay

. Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: Initial 200 cases. J Urol, 2005; 174:269–272.

12.

McNeill

, Nabi

, McLornan

et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: Critical analysis of outcomes and learning curve. BJU Int, 2010; 106:1537–1543.

13.

Gumus

, Boylu

, Turan

, Onol

. The learning curve of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol, 2011; 25:1633–1637.

14.

Imamoto

, Goto

, Utsumi

et al. Complications, urinary continence, and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Single-surgeon experience for the first 100 cases. Prostate Cancer, 2011; 2011:606505.

15.

Ficarra

, Cavalleri

, Novara

et al. Evidence from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A systematic review. Eur Urol, 2007; 51:45–56.

16.

Menon

, Tewari

, Peabody

et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy, a technique of robotic radical prostatectomy for management of localized carcinoma of the prostate: Experience of over 1100 cases. Urol Clin North Am, 2004; 31:701–717.

17.

Menon

, Shrivastava

, Tewari

et al. Laparoscopic and robot assisted radical prostatectomy: Establishment of a structured program and preliminary analysis of outcomes. J Urol, 2002; 168:945–949.

18.

Artibani

, Fracalanza

, Cavalleri

et al. Learning curve and preliminary experience with da Vinci-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol Int, 2008; 80:237–244.

19.

Bentas

, Wolfram

, Jones

et al. Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: The early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur Urol, 2003; 44:175–181.

20.

Yoshioka

, Hatano

, Nakagami

et al.

[First 24 Japanese cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy using the daVinci Surgical System]

(Jap) Hinyokika Kiyo, 2008; 54:333–339.

21.

Zorn

, Orvieto

, Gong

et al. Robotic radical prostatectomy learning curve of a fellowship-trained laparoscopic surgeon. J Endourol, 2007; 21:441–447.

22.

Stolzenburg

, Rabenalt

, Do

et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: The University of Leipzig experience of 1,300 cases. World J Urol, 2007; 25:45–51.

23.

Patel

, Palmer

, Coughlin

, Samavedi

. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Perioperative outcomes of 1500 cases. J Endourol, 2008; 22:2299–2305.

24.

Chabert

, Merrilees

, Neill

, Eden

. Curtain dissection of the lateral prostatic fascia and potency after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A veil of mystery. BJU Int, 2008; 101:1285–1288.

25.

Zorn

, Gofrit

, Orvieto

et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. Eur Urol, 2007; 51:755–763.

26.

Guru

, Perlmutter

, Sheldon

et al.

Apical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Does technique matter?

J Endourol, 2009; 23:123–127.

27.

Hashimoto

, Yoshioka

, Gondo

et al. Predictors for positive surgical margins after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A single surgeon's series in Japan. Int J Urol, 2013Epub ahead of print.

28.

Menon

, Shrivastava

, Kaul

et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: Contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol, 2007; 51:648–658.

29.

Tewari

, Srivasatava

, Menon

. Members of the VIP Team. A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: Experience in one institution. BJU Int, 2003; 92:205–210.