Early Experience in Extraperitoneal Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy with HUGO RAS System: A Comparative Analysis with Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

Miguel Marques Monteiro; David Teixeira; Diogo Nunes-Carneiro; João  Cabral; Frederico Teves; José Soares; Avelino Fraga

doi:10.24915/aup.252

Authors

Miguel Marques Monteiro Urology Service, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8222-0511
David Teixeira Instituto Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar – Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Diogo Nunes-Carneiro Urology Service, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar – Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
João Cabral Urology Service, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal
Frederico Teves Urology Service, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar – Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
José Soares Urology Service, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar – Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
Avelino Fraga Urology Service, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar – Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24915/aup.252

Keywords:

Laparoscopy, Prostate/surgery, Prostatectomy/methods, Prostatic Neoplasms/surgery, Robotic Surgical Procedures

Abstract

Introduction:
The Hugo™ RAS system represents a novel robotic platform recently implemented in our department. Despite its introduction, there is still a scarcity of data regarding extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (eRARP) carried out using this system. Our primary aim is to compare perioperative, early functional, and oncological outcomes of eRARP with the Hugo RAS System during our centre’s initial foray into robotic surgery with our standard three-dimensional extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (eLRP).

Methods:
We conducted a retrospective analysis, comparing men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who underwent either eRALP or eLRP at a tertiary referral centre in Portugal. These procedures were carried out by the same major surgeons between 2022 and 2023. Urinary continence was defined as no pads used and was assessed up to 3 months post-surgery. Oncologic outcomes were determined by evaluating the positive surgical margin (PSM) rate and PSA levels >0.1 ng/mL at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the usage of protective pads at 6 weeks and 3 months post-surgery, total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and catheterization time. Complications within 3 months post-surgery were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Statistics 28, with significance set at a two-sided p-value <0.05.

Results:
Patients who underwent eRALP (n=50) and eLRP (n=59) were analysed and compared. Postoperative continence rates at 6 weeks and 3 months after surgery were 52.0% and 70.0% for eRALP and 42.4% and 64.4% for eLRP, respectively (p>0.05). PSA persistence was observed in 16.7% and 23.7% for the eRALP and eLRP, respectively (p=0.369). There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of positive surgical margins (PSM) between the two surgical modalities. Regarding perioperative outcomes, the median total operative time was greater for eRALP compared to eLRP (261 min [238–294] vs 177 min [157–200], p<0.001). For eRALP, the median console time was 137 min (119–196), and the mean docking time was 4.6 min (IQR 4.1–5.2). The median estimated blood loss was 200 mL (250–575) vs 150 mL (100–200) for eRALP and eLRP, respectively (p=0.151). The median time to remove the vesical catheter was lower for eRARP (7 days [7–8] vs 8 days [8–10], p<0.001). A percentage of 92% of patients undergoing eRALP had a length of stay less than or equal to two days, while only 52.5% of those undergoing eLRP met this criterion (p<0.001). The only intraoperative complication registered was mechanical failure in one robotic arm, which required conversion to laparoscopy. No intraoperative complications for eLRP were registered. There was also no statistically significant difference in the rates of complication frequency within 3 months after surgery (eRALP 10.0% vs eLRP 10.2%, p=0.459).

Conclusion:
Robotic-assisted extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS demonstrates comparable oncological outcomes and early urinary continence to our standard laparoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. eRARP with this novel robotic system seems to allow a seamless transition into robotic surgery.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Diogo Nunes-Carneiro, Urology Service, Unidade Local de Saúde de Santo António, Porto, Portugal; Instituto Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar – Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal

References

Culp M.B., Soerjomataram I., Efstathiou J.A., et al., Recent Global Patterns in Prostate Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Eur Urol, 2020. 77(1): p. 38-52.

Ferlay J., Ervik M., Lam F., et al., Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Park J.W., Won Lee H., Kim W., et al., Comparative assessment of a single surgeon's series of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: conventional versus robot-assisted. J Endourol, 2011. 25(4): p. 597-602.

EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. ISBN 978-94-92671-19-6.

Esperto F., Cacciatore L., Tedesco F., et al., Impact of Robotic Technologies on Prostate Cancer Patients' Choice for Radical Treatment. J Pers Med, 2023. 13(5).

Stolzenburg J.U., Holze S., Neuhaus P., et al., Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery: Outcomes from the First Multicentre, Randomised, Patient-blinded Controlled Trial in Radical Prostatectomy (LAP-01). Eur Urol, 2021. 79(6): p. 750-759.

Totaro A., Campetella M., Bientinesi R., et al., The new surgical robotic platform HUGO(TM) RAS: System description and docking settings for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urologia, 2022. 89(4): p. 603-609.

Ngu J.C., Lin C.C., Sia C.J., Teo N.Z., A narrative review of the Medtronic Hugo RAS and technical comparison with the Intuitive da Vinci robotic surgical system. J Robot Surg, 2024. 18(1): p. 99.

Haglind E., Carlsson S., Stranne J., et al., Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction After Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective, Controlled, Nonrandomised Trial. Eur Urol, 2015. 68(2): p. 216-25.

Marques-Monteiro M., Teixeira B., Mendes G., et al., Extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the Hugo™ RAS system: initial experience of a tertiary center with a high background in extraperitoneal laparoscopy surgery. World J Urol, 2023. 41(10): p. 2671-2677.

Gandaglia G., Martini A., Ploussard G., et al., External Validation of the 2019 Briganti Nomogram for the Identification of Prostate Cancer Patients Who Should Be Considered for an Extended Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection. Eur Urol, 2020. 78(2): p. 138-142.

Healy K.A., Gomella L.G., Retropubic, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy: is there any real difference? Semin Oncol, 2013. 40(3): p. 286-96.

Guazzoni G., Cestari A., Naspro R., et al., Intra- and peri-operative outcomes comparing radical retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results from a prospective, randomised, single-surgeon study. Eur Urol, 2006. 50(1): p. 98-104.

Yaxley J.W., Coughlin G.D., Chambers S.K., et al., Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet, 2016. 388(10049): p. 1057-1066.

Coughlin G.D., Yaxley J.W., Chambers S.K., et al., Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: 24-month outcomes from a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol, 2018. 19(8): p. 1051-1060.

Porpiglia F., Morra I., Lucci Chiarissi M., et al., Randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2013. 63(4): p. 606-14.

Basiri A., de la Rosette J.J., Tabatabaei S., Woo H.H., Laguna M.P., Shemshaki H., Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? World J Urol, 2018. 36(4): p. 609-621.

Stolzenburg J.U., Holze S., Arthanareeswaran V.K., et al., Robotic-assisted Versus Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: 12-month Outcomes of the Multicentre Randomised Controlled LAP-01 Trial. Eur Urol Focus, 2022. 8(6): p. 1583-1590.

Lantz A., Bock D., Akre O., et al., Functional and Oncological Outcomes After Open Versus Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localised Prostate Cancer: 8-Year Follow-up. Eur Urol, 2021. 80(5): p. 650-660.

Asimakopoulos A.D., Pereira Fraga C.T., Annino F., Pasqualetti P., Calado A.A., Mugnier C., Randomized comparison between laparoscopic and robot-assisted nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med, 2011. 8(5): p. 1503-12.

Ilic D., Evans S.M., Allan C.A., Jung J.H., Murphy D., Frydenberg M., Laparoscopic and robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017. 9(9): p. Cd009625.

Jacobsen N.E., Moore K.N., Estey E., Voaklander D., Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparison of postoperative urinary incontinence rates. J Urol, 2007. 177(2): p. 615-9.

Ficarra V., Novara G., Ahlering T.E., et al., Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol, 2012. 62(3): p. 418-30.

Rocco F., Carmignani L., Acquati P., et al., Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol, 2006. 175(6): p. 2201-6.

Ippoliti S., Colalillo G., Egbury G., et al., Continence-Sparing Techniques in Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Endourol, 2023. 37(10): p. 1088-1104.

Begg C.B., Riedel E.R., Bach P.B., et al., Variations in morbidity after radical prostatectomy. N Engl J Med, 2002. 346(15): p. 1138-44.

Salazar A., Regis L., Planas J., et al., Early continence after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed), 2019. 43(10): p. 526-535.

Bravi C.A., Paciotti M., Balestrazzi E., et al., Outcomes of Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy with the Hugo RAS Surgical System: Initial Experience at a High-volume Robotic Center. Eur Urol Focus, 2023.

Paciotti, M., Bravi C.A., Mottaran A., et al., Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with the HUGO™ robot-assisted surgery system using the 'Aalst technique'. BJU Int, 2023. 132(2): p. 227-230.

Busby D., Sood A., The Goldilocks principle: when to remove Foley catheter after robotic radical prostatectomy. Transl Androl Urol, 2022. 11(11): p. 1477-1479.

Develtere D., Rosiello G., Piazza P., et al., Early Catheter Removal on Postoperative Day 2 After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Updated Real-life Experience with the Aalst Technique. Eur Urol Focus, 2022. 8(4): p. 922-925.