The Journal of Urology 04/2013; 189(4):e401. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.559 · 3.75 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Complications after robot-assisted prostatectomy are widely reported and varied. Our goal was to determine the incidence of surgical complications resulting from robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) during the initial phase of a new robotics program that was developed by two surgeons without laparoscopic or robotic fellowship training. A secondary goal was to see if experience changed the incidence of complications with this technology.
A prospectively maintained database was used to evaluate the first 1000 consecutive patients who were treated with RALP from January 2004 to June 2009. The database was reviewed for evidence of complications in the perioperative period. All patients underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by two surgeons. Complications were confirmed and supplemented by retrospectively reviewing the departmental morbidity and mortality reports, as well as the hospital records. The Clavien classification system, a standardized and validated scale for complication reporting, was applied to all events. The complication rate was determined per 100 patients treated and tested with logistic regression for a relationship with surgeon experience.
Ninety-seven (9.7%) patients experienced a total of 116 complications; 81 patients experienced a single complication and 16 patients experienced ≥2 complications. The majority of complications (71%) were either grade I or II. The complication rate decreased with experience when the first 500 cases were compared with the latter 500 cases (P=0.007). All the data were reviewed retrospectively. Involvement of residents/fellows increased as primary surgeon experience improved.
Complications after RALP are most commonly minor, requiring expectant or medical management only, even during the initiation of a RALP program. The complication rate improved significantly during the study period.
Journal of endourology / Endourological Society 12/2011; 26(2):135-9. DOI:10.1089/end.2011.0322 · 2.10 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Rectal injury during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy is a rare but significant complication. Since the Clavien grading classification of complications does not include intraoperative injury without further sequelae, rectal injury may be underreported in the literature. We present what is to our knowledge the largest retrospective review to date of rectal injury and subsequent management.
We reviewed the records of 6,650 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at a total of 6 institutions. Patient characteristics, perioperative parameters, pathological findings and rectal injury management were tabulated and analyzed for intraoperative predictors of outcome and subsequent management.
A total of 11 rectal injury cases were identified of the 6,650 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies for a combined 0.17% incidence of rectal injury. Of rectal injuries 72.7% were identified intraoperatively and most did well with primary closure. Delayed recognition injury presented as rectourethral fistula without septic complications and required delayed fistula repair after primary diversion. We found no conclusive association of rectal injury with any patient parameter, intraoperative differences, pathological finding or surgeon experience. Posterior prostate plane dissection, including seminal vesicle dissection, is the crucial stage when rectal injury can occur and be identified.
Our review of the records at 6 centers revealed a combined 0.17% incidence of rectal injury. This compares favorably to the incidence in modern open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy series. No preoperative, intraoperative or pathological differences correlated with injury. Cases in which rectal injury was identified intraoperatively required fewer surgical repeat interventions but ultimately each group had acceptable long-term urinary and bowel function results.
The Journal of urology 09/2011; 186(5):1928-33. DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2011.07.004 · 3.75 Impact Factor
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 04/2011; 185(4). DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.1473 · 4.32 Impact Factor