Robotic Radical Perineal Prostatectomy Study

Radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP) was the first approach utilized for the removal of the entire prostate gland for prostate cancer \[1\]. It continued to be the favoured approach for radical prostatectomy for several decades before the description of the radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) by Walsh in 1970s, who has refined the anatomical retropubic approach \[2\]. In the minimally invasive surgery era, the robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) was first described in the early 2000s \[3\]. With time, the robotic retropubic approach became one of the most common approaches for prostate removal in prostate cancer patients. In parallel with the implementation of robotic surgery in retropubic prostatectomy, a revival in interest was experienced for the RPP approach in its role for the management of localized prostate cancer. In 2003, Resnick reported a cohort of RPP with reasonable operative times and cancer control concluding that the procedure was safe and effective \[4\]. Janoff and Parra noted that in comparison to RRP, patients undergoing RPP had less postoperative discomfort, shorter return of bowel function and hospital stay with a decreased transfusion rate \[5\]. Incorporating the robotic technology into the technique of RPP, Kaouk et al. performed robotic RPP in four patients with localized prostate cancer using a multi-arm da Vinci Surgical system (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). The procedures were successfully completed applying a robotic perineal approach with patients discharged within 48 hours \[6\]. Tugku et al reported their clinical experience with 15 patients who underwent robotic RPP \[7\]. Early continence rate was shown to be 40% at urethral catheter removal and 94% at third months postoperatively. Furthermore, a study was performed by the same group comparing outcomes of robotic RPP versus transperitoneal RALP \[8\]. Eighty patients (40 robotic RPP vs 40 RALP) with localized prostate cancer were included in the study. Continence rates were 94% in the robotic RPP and 72% in the RALP (p = 0.001) group at the 6th-month follow-up. In terms of erectile function, the rates favoured robotic RPP at 3, 6, and 9-month follow-ups with 44%, 66%, and 75%, respectively. In addition, compared with conventional RALP, robotic RPP would offer an advantage for those patients who had previous intra-abdominal surgery. Moreover, not having the need of putting the patients into steep Trendelenburg position is another potential benefit of robotic RPP over conventional RALP. In this study, we evaluate the early oncological outcome and objective functional outcome of patients undergoing robotic RPP for the treatment of localized prostate cancer.