The importance of surgical access in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer and abnormal prostate anatomy

Background. The increased volume of the prostate in patients with confirmed prostate cancer (pc) is observed in 10 % of cases. The limitations of external beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy associated with large prostate volume and obstructive symptoms define radical prostatectomy (Rp) as the only possible treatment for prostate cancer in these patients. The purpose of the study was to determine the importance of the surgical approach in radical prostatectomy in patients with abnormal anatomy of the prostate. Material and methods. The study group consisted of patients with a prostate volume of more than 80 cm3 (n=40) who underwent a robot prostatectomy. The comparison group was represented by patients also selected by the prostate volume ≥ 80 cm3, who underwent classical open prostatectomy (n=44). The groups were comparable in age and psa level. The average prostate volume in the study group was 112.2 ± 26 cm 3(80–195 cm 3). The average prostate volume in the comparison group was 109.8 ± 18.7 cm3 (80–158 cm 3) (р>0.05). Both groups had favorable morphological characteristics. Results. The average surgery time difference was 65 minutes in favor of the open prostatectomy (p<0.05). The average blood loss volume in the study group was 282.5 ± 227.5 ml (50–1000 ml). The average blood loss volume in the group with open prostatectomy was 505.7 ± 382.3 ml (50–2000 ml). Positive surgical margin in the robotic prostatectomy was not detected, at 6.9 % in the group with open prostatectomy (p<0.05). According to the criterion of urinary continence, the best results were obtained in the group of robotic prostatectomy (p<0.05). Overall and relapse-free 5-year survival did not show a statistically significant difference. Conclusion. The use of robotic prostatectomy in a group of patients with a large prostate volume (≥ 80 cm3) allows us to achieve better functional and oncological outcomes.

EP.TU.493Attitudes of Irish General Surgery trainees to Robotic-Assisted Surgery

Background While the use of robotic-assisted surgery is now mainstream for procedures such as robotic prostatectomy, its role in general surgery is less well established. Access to training in robotics for general surgery trainees in the Republic of Ireland is variable. Further, there is no data on attitudes of Irish trainees towards the role of robotics. We aimed to establish attitudes of Irish general surgery trainees towards the perceived utility of robotic surgery as well as access and satisfaction with training. Methods A survey was disseminated to trainees in the Republic of Ireland enrolled in a General Surgery training scheme via email and social media. Data collected included stage of training, intended subspecialty, interest in developing robotic skills, previous exposure to robotic surgery, satisfaction with current access to robotic training and opinion on formally incorporating training in robotics into the general surgery curriculum. Results The response rate was 44.8%. Of these, 83% reported interest in training in robotics and 69% anticipated using the technology regularly in consultant practice. Previous exposure to robotic-assisted surgery was significantly predictive of interest in developing the skillset (p = 0.014). Over 71% of trainees reported that they were not satisfied with access to robotic training. Of those satisfied with access, 40% felt there was a role for incorporating robotic training into the curriculum, compared to 68% of those dissatisfied. Conclusion Irish general surgery trainees perceive robotic-assisted surgery to be highly relevant to their future practice. There is an unmet need to provide additional training in the skillset.

Comparison of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure versus Tidal Volume-Induced Ventilator-Driven Alveolar Recruitment Maneuver in Robotic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Study

Background: We evaluated the pulmonary effects of two ventilator-driven alveolar recruitment maneuver (ARM) methods during laparoscopic surgery. Methods: Sixty-four patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy were randomized into two groups: incrementally increasing positive end-expiratory pressure in a stepwise manner (PEEP group) versus tidal volume (VT group). We performed each ARM after induction of anesthesia in the supine position (T1), after pneumoperitoneum in the Trendelenburg position (T2), and after peritoneum desufflation in the supine position (T3). The primary outcome was change in end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) before and 5 min after ARM at T3, measured by electrical impedance tomography. Results: The PEEP group showed significantly higher increasing EELI 5 min after ARM than the VT group at T1 and T3 (median [IQR] 460 [180,800] vs. 200 [80,315], p = 0.002 and 280 [170,420] vs. 95 [55,175], p = 0.004, respectively; PEEP group vs. VT group). The PEEP group showed significantly higher lung compliance and lower driving pressure at T1 and T3. However, there was no significant difference in EELI change, lung compliance, or driving pressure after ARM at T2. Conclusions: The ventilator-driven ARM by the increasing PEEP method led to greater improvements in lung compliance at the end of laparoscopic surgery than the increasing VT method.