Marra, G;
Agnello, M;
Giordano, A;
Soria, F;
Oderda, M;
Dariane, C;
Timsit, MO;
... Gontero, P; + view all
(2022)
Robotic Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer in Renal Transplant Recipients: Results from a Multicenter Series.
European Urology
, 82
(6)
pp. 639-645.
10.1016/j.eururo.2022.05.024.
Preview |
Text
Kasivisvanathan_Final accepted word Manuscript Robot DEF GM.pdf Download (1MB) | Preview |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite an expected increase in prostate cancer (PCa) incidence in the renal transplant recipient (RTR) population in the near future, robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in these patients has been poorly detailed. It is not well understood whether results are comparable to RARP in the non-RTR setting. OBJECTIVE: To describe the surgical technique for RARP in RTR and report results from our multi-institutional experience. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective review of the experience of four referral centers. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Transperitoneal RARP with pelvic lymph node dissection in selected patients. MEASUREMENTS: We measured patient, PCa, and graft baseline features; intraoperative and postoperative parameters; complications, (Clavien classification); and oncological and functional outcomes. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We included 41 men. The median age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, preoperative renal function, and prostate-specific antigen were 60 yr (interquartile range [IQR] 57–64), 2 points (IQR 2–3), 45 ml/min (IQR 30–62), and 6.5 ng/ml (IQR 5.2–10.2), respectively. Four men (9.8%) had a biopsy Gleason score >7. The majority of the patients (70.7%) did not undergo lymphadenectomy. The median operating time, hospital stay, and catheterization time were 201 min (IQR 170–250), 4 d (IQR 2–6), and 10 d (IQR 7–13), respectively. At final pathology, 11 men had extraprostatic extension and seven had positive surgical margins. At median follow-up of 42 mo (IQR 24–65), four men had biochemical recurrence, including one case of local PCa persistence and one local recurrence. No metastases were recorded while two patients died from non–PCa-related causes. Continence was preserved in 86.1% (p not applicable) and erections in 64.7% (p = 0.0633) of those who were continent/potent before the procedure. Renal function remained unchanged (p = 0.08). No intraoperative complications and one major (Clavien 3a) complication were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: RARP in RTR is safe and feasible. Overall, operative, oncological, and functional outcomes are comparable to those described for the non-RTR setting, with graft injury remaining undescribed. Further research is needed to confirm our findings. PATIENT SUMMARY: Robot-assisted removal of the prostate is safe and feasible in patients who have a kidney transplant. Cancer control, urinary and sexual function results, and surgical complications seem to be similar to those for patients without a transplant, but further research is needed.
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
