Vol. 23 No. 1 (2024)
Original Articles

Open anterograde anatomic radical prostatectomy, a technique developed at Rio de Janeiro State University

Fabricio B. Carrerette
Pedro Ernesto University Hospital

Published 2024-08-21

Keywords

  • Open Prostatectomy,
  • Robotic Prostatectomy,
  • Prostate Neoplasms,
  • Surgery,
  • Surgical anastomosis

How to Cite

1.
S. Diniz V, S. Barroso G, B. Alves R, B. Carrerette F, Bouzas Rodeiro D, da Silva Polonia AB, Vaz Chilão Guedes F, Rodrigues Oliveira A, Bitencourt Ribeiro E, Moreira Crelier G. Open anterograde anatomic radical prostatectomy, a technique developed at Rio de Janeiro State University. BJHBS [Internet]. 2024 Aug. 21 [cited 2024 Sep. 16];23(1). Available from: https://bjhbs.hupe.uerj.br/bjhbs/article/view/152

Abstract

Introduction: Radical prostatectomy is the gold standard treatment for localized prostate cancer, videolaparoscopic was a new leap forward, however, it added great technical difficulty, long and very slow learning curve overcome by few and surgeons, which made the universalization extremely difficult. Robotic prostatectomy democratized this surgery, allowing a large number of surgeons to perform this procedure. However, the high cost of this technology greatly limits universalization, especially in countries in the global south. Methodology: In 2015, the possibility of using some concepts from laparoscopic prostatectomy to improve open prostatectomy and based on a study of the various techniques performed by open, laparoscopic and robotic route we developed a novel technique to reproduce robotic prostatectomy openly, without the addition of any new instrument or materials "Open Anterograde Anatomic Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy" (AORP). RESULTS: AORP was superior to Open Radical Prostatectomy in critical parameters: median estimated blood loss 300mL versus 500mL (p=0.0003), urethrovesical anastomosis 20min versus 25min (p=0.005), shorter duration of indwelling vesical catheterization 7 versus 14 days, surgeon's perception of the nerve-sparing 101 (87.8%) and 71 (67.6%) (p=0.0009), urinary continence 70 (60.9%) versus 45 (42.0%), fewer complications (p=0.007) and similar oncological control. Discussion: we understand that the gains of robotic surgery are not only due to the introduction of technology but also to an improvement in the technique of dissection, preservation and reconstruction that can be reproduced in open surgery and allow patients without access to robotic technology to be similarly operated with an improved procedure.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 1997,50:854-57.
  2. Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC. Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate 1983, 4: 473-485. doi:10.1002/pros.2990040506
  3. Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, et al. Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol. 2000;10:520-23.
  4. Ilic D, Evans SM, Allan CA, et al. Laparoscopic and robotic assisted versus open radical prostatectomy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD009625. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009625.pub2.
  5. Lott FM. Curva de aprendizado na prostatectomia robótica. 2018. 104 f. Tese (Doutorado em Ciências Médicas) – Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2018.
  6. Van Velthoven RF, Ahlering TE, Peltier A, et al. Technique for laparoscopic running urethrovesical anastomosis: the single knot method. Urology. 2003; 61 699-702.
  7. Fabricio BC, Ronaldo D, Alexandro da Silva E, et al. Description of the Open Anterograde Anatomic Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy Technique. Surgery Curr Res 2017;7:304#.# doi: 10.4172/2161-1076.1000304.
  8. Campbell EW. Total prostatectomy with preliminary ligation of the vascular pedicles. J Urol 1959,81:464-467.
  9. Sciarra A, Gentile V, De Matteis A, et al. Long-term experience with an anatomical anterograde approach to radical prostatectomy: Results in terms of positive margin rate. Urol Int 2008, 80:151-156.
  10. Francesco M, Timothy GW, Raymond CR, et al.. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol. 2012;62:368-81#.# doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.057
  11. Carrerette FB, Carvalho E, Machado H, et al. Open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy technique: description of the first fifty-five procedures. Int Braz J Urol. 2019;45:1071–1072. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Fabricio BC, Daniela BR, Rui TF Filho, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing open anterograde anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy with retrograde technique. Asian J Urol. 2023 Apr;10(2):151–157. doi:10.1016/j. ajur.2021.11.008
  13. Gabriel MC, Victor V, Daniel PN, Caio Vinícius OV, Victor Senna, Fabrício BC, Daniella Bouzas Rodeiro, Rui de Teófilo e Figueiredo Filho, Celso Mário Costa Lara, Ronaldo Damião Estudo prospectivo comparando a prostatectomia radical anterograda com robotica em um hospital universitário público. BJHBS, Rio de Janeiro, 2023;22(Suppl1):77-78. ID 666086
  14. Gabriel MC, Gabriela SB, Rodrigo BA, et al. Comparação de custos entre prostatectomia radical anterograda aberta e robótica em um hospital universitário público. BJHBS, Rio de Janeiro, 2023;22(Suppl1):76-77. ID 666084