Introduction Lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) with robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP) is an important gap of the literature related to the surgical treatment of the clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa). Aim To provide the first prospective randomized comparison on the functional and oncological outcomes of LRP and RALRP for the treatment of the clinically localized PCa. Methods Between 2007 and 2008, 128 consecutive male patients were randomized in two groups and treated by a single experienced surgeon with traditional LRP (Group I-64 patients) or RALRP (Group II-64 patients) in all cases with intent of bilateral intrafascial nerve sparing. Main Outcome Measures Primary end point was to compare the 12 months erectile function (EF) outcomes. Complication rates, continence outcomes, and oncological results were also compared. The sample size of our study was able, with an adequate power (1-beta > 0.90), to recognize as significant large differences (above 0.30) between incidence proportions of considered outcomes. Results No statistically significant differences were observed for operating time, estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, rates of positive surgical margins, rates of biochemical recurrence, continence, and time to continence. However, the 12-month evaluation of capability for intercourse (with or without phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors) showed a clear and significant advantage of RALRP (32% vs. 77%, P  < 0.0001). Time to capability for intercourse was significantly shorter for RALRP. Rates of return to baseline International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-6) EF domain score questionnaires (questions 1–5 and 15) (25% vs. 58%) and to IIEF-6 > 17 (38% vs. 63%) were also significantly higher for RALRP (P  = 0.0002 and P  = 0.008, respectively). Conclusions Our study offers the first high-level evidence that RALRP provides significantly better EF recovery than LRP without hindering the oncologic radicality of the procedure. Larger RCTs are needed to confirm if a new gold-standard treatment in the field of RP has risen.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveRobotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) is established as the gold standard approach to treating small renal masses. However, numerous technical challenges and concepts related to this approach are still under discussion and are not consensus among surgeons from different centers. We performed an online questionnaire with multiple topics about RAPN and selected high-volume surgeons from referral centers in Brazil to achieve a consensus.MethodsWe implemented an online consensus of 29 experts selected based on surgical expertise and competence in analyzing the published literature. Based on the collected literature and current Guidelines (NCCN, AUA, and EAU) we created a questionnaire with 131 questions and administered it to all participants. The statements and the Delphi technique design were combined in a single round of questions. The answers were reviewed, 70% of concordance was considered a consensus, and a final manuscript with recommendations was developed.ResultsWe divided our results into 25 subtopics that included all questions and discussions of the questionnaire, including preoperative settings, surgical technique, pathological analysis, technology use, and challenging cases. Some areas had limited data in the literature, and these potential limitations were addressed and discussed on each topic.ConclusionRAPN is the standard surgical treatment for renal masses in the centers of robotic surgery. Among the important topics of this study, we recommend always performing the first RAPN cases with proctors’ assistance, conducting preoperative planning using good-quality imaging exams, minimizing the amount of renal parenchyma removed, and achieving appropriate hemostatic suture while reducing renal parenchyma ischemia.