Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Mistretta,Francesco Alessandro
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Galfano,Antonio, Trapani,Ettore Di, Trapani,Dario Di, Russo,Andrea, Secco,Silvia, Ferro,Matteo, Musi,Gennaro, Bocciardi,Aldo Massimo, Cobelli,Ottavio de
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: International Braz J Urol (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200262
Resumo: ABSTRACT Background: To date, few series on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have been published. Purpose: To report the experience of two referral centers adopting two different RARP approaches in KTRs. Surgical, oncological and functional results were primary outcomes evaluated in the study. Material and methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 9 KTRs who underwent transperitoneal RARP or Retzius-sparing RARP for PCa from October 2012 to April 2016. Data were reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Pre- and postoperative outcomes were compared by non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Significant differences were accepted when p ≤ 0.05. Overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Four KTRs underwent a T-RARP and 5 a RS-RARP. Patient median age was 60 (56-63) years. Charlson comorbidity index was 6 (5-6). Preoperative median PSA was 5.6 (5-15) ng / mL. Preoperative Gleason score (GS) was 6 in 5 patients, 7 (3 + 4) in 3, and 8 (4 + 4) in one. Pre- and postoperative creatinine were 1.17 (1.1; 1.4) and 1.3 (1.07; 1.57) mg / dL (p = 0.237), while eGFR was 66 (60-82) and 62 (54-81) mL / min / 1.73m2 (p = 0.553), respectively. One (11.1%) Clavien-Dindo grade II complication occurred. Two extended template lymphadenectomies were performed, both with nodal invasion. These two patients experienced a biochemical recurrence and were subjected to RT. Two patients (22.2%) had PSMs. Median follow-up was 42 months. Seven patients (77.8%) were continent, 5 (55.6%) were potent. Two (22.2%) patients died during follow-up for oncologic unrelated causes. Conclusions: Our series suggests that both RARP approaches are safe and feasible techniques in KTRs for PCa.
id SBU-1_cd977e811f49d3886a9d1d6e0c64fe04
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382019000200262
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approachesKidney TransplantationProstatic NeoplasmsProstatectomyRoboticsABSTRACT Background: To date, few series on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have been published. Purpose: To report the experience of two referral centers adopting two different RARP approaches in KTRs. Surgical, oncological and functional results were primary outcomes evaluated in the study. Material and methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 9 KTRs who underwent transperitoneal RARP or Retzius-sparing RARP for PCa from October 2012 to April 2016. Data were reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Pre- and postoperative outcomes were compared by non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Significant differences were accepted when p ≤ 0.05. Overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Four KTRs underwent a T-RARP and 5 a RS-RARP. Patient median age was 60 (56-63) years. Charlson comorbidity index was 6 (5-6). Preoperative median PSA was 5.6 (5-15) ng / mL. Preoperative Gleason score (GS) was 6 in 5 patients, 7 (3 + 4) in 3, and 8 (4 + 4) in one. Pre- and postoperative creatinine were 1.17 (1.1; 1.4) and 1.3 (1.07; 1.57) mg / dL (p = 0.237), while eGFR was 66 (60-82) and 62 (54-81) mL / min / 1.73m2 (p = 0.553), respectively. One (11.1%) Clavien-Dindo grade II complication occurred. Two extended template lymphadenectomies were performed, both with nodal invasion. These two patients experienced a biochemical recurrence and were subjected to RT. Two patients (22.2%) had PSMs. Median follow-up was 42 months. Seven patients (77.8%) were continent, 5 (55.6%) were potent. Two (22.2%) patients died during follow-up for oncologic unrelated causes. Conclusions: Our series suggests that both RARP approaches are safe and feasible techniques in KTRs for PCa.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2019-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200262International braz j urol v.45 n.2 2019reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0308info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMistretta,Francesco AlessandroGalfano,AntonioTrapani,Ettore DiTrapani,Dario DiRusso,AndreaSecco,SilviaFerro,MatteoMusi,GennaroBocciardi,Aldo MassimoCobelli,Ottavio deeng2019-05-22T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382019000200262Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2019-05-22T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches
title Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches
spellingShingle Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches
Mistretta,Francesco Alessandro
Kidney Transplantation
Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostatectomy
Robotics
title_short Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches
title_full Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches
title_fullStr Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches
title_full_unstemmed Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches
title_sort Robot assisted radical prostatectomy in kidney transplant recipients: surgical, oncological and functional outcomes of two different robotic approaches
author Mistretta,Francesco Alessandro
author_facet Mistretta,Francesco Alessandro
Galfano,Antonio
Trapani,Ettore Di
Trapani,Dario Di
Russo,Andrea
Secco,Silvia
Ferro,Matteo
Musi,Gennaro
Bocciardi,Aldo Massimo
Cobelli,Ottavio de
author_role author
author2 Galfano,Antonio
Trapani,Ettore Di
Trapani,Dario Di
Russo,Andrea
Secco,Silvia
Ferro,Matteo
Musi,Gennaro
Bocciardi,Aldo Massimo
Cobelli,Ottavio de
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Mistretta,Francesco Alessandro
Galfano,Antonio
Trapani,Ettore Di
Trapani,Dario Di
Russo,Andrea
Secco,Silvia
Ferro,Matteo
Musi,Gennaro
Bocciardi,Aldo Massimo
Cobelli,Ottavio de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Kidney Transplantation
Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostatectomy
Robotics
topic Kidney Transplantation
Prostatic Neoplasms
Prostatectomy
Robotics
description ABSTRACT Background: To date, few series on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) have been published. Purpose: To report the experience of two referral centers adopting two different RARP approaches in KTRs. Surgical, oncological and functional results were primary outcomes evaluated in the study. Material and methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 9 KTRs who underwent transperitoneal RARP or Retzius-sparing RARP for PCa from October 2012 to April 2016. Data were reported as median and interquartile range (IQR). Pre- and postoperative outcomes were compared by non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Significant differences were accepted when p ≤ 0.05. Overall survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Four KTRs underwent a T-RARP and 5 a RS-RARP. Patient median age was 60 (56-63) years. Charlson comorbidity index was 6 (5-6). Preoperative median PSA was 5.6 (5-15) ng / mL. Preoperative Gleason score (GS) was 6 in 5 patients, 7 (3 + 4) in 3, and 8 (4 + 4) in one. Pre- and postoperative creatinine were 1.17 (1.1; 1.4) and 1.3 (1.07; 1.57) mg / dL (p = 0.237), while eGFR was 66 (60-82) and 62 (54-81) mL / min / 1.73m2 (p = 0.553), respectively. One (11.1%) Clavien-Dindo grade II complication occurred. Two extended template lymphadenectomies were performed, both with nodal invasion. These two patients experienced a biochemical recurrence and were subjected to RT. Two patients (22.2%) had PSMs. Median follow-up was 42 months. Seven patients (77.8%) were continent, 5 (55.6%) were potent. Two (22.2%) patients died during follow-up for oncologic unrelated causes. Conclusions: Our series suggests that both RARP approaches are safe and feasible techniques in KTRs for PCa.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-04-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200262
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000200262
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0308
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv International braz j urol v.45 n.2 2019
reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron:SBU
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
instacron_str SBU
institution SBU
reponame_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
collection International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br
_version_ 1750318076770910208