head JofIMAB
Journal of IMAB - Annual Proceeding (Scientific Papers)
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2022, vol. 28, issue1
Subject Area: Medicine
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2022281.4310
Published online: 28 March 2022

Original article
J of IMAB. 2022 Jan-Mar;28(1):4310-4315
Deyan AnakievskiORCID logo Corresponding Autoremail, Rostislav MarinovORCID logo, Inna GochevaORCID logo, Viktor NikolovORCID logo, Pavel AbushevORCID logo,
Clinic of Urology, University Hospital "St. Marina", Medical University - Varna, Bulgaria.

During the recent years, prostate cancer becomes a major socio-medical challenge worldwide, as well as in Bulgaria, because of its rising importance and unfavorable impact on human health. Recently we are facing significant theoretical and practical advances in the field of minimally invasive prostate cancer surgery.
The last two decades witness a dramatic change in the surgical treatment of most urological diseases with the adventage of a robotic surgical platform. In fact, surgical treatment of prostate cancer has undergone most significant change, thus almost every case nowadays is performed with a robot. The present abstract indicates our initial experience with the use of da Vinci Xi-system in prostate cancer surgery.
Materials and methods: 137 robot-assisted radical prostatectomies have been performed in patients with prostate cancer for the period 1 February 2020 / 1 May 2021 in our clinic.
Results: The average operative time for the performed operations with minimal blood loss was 160 minutes. Blood transfusion was performed to two patients, whereas no conversion of operations was required in other patients. About half of the patients underwent extended pelvic lymph node dissection due to the high risk for them.
Conclusion: Robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is shown to be an easily performed laparoscopic technique and best practice, compared to the standard open procedure. When analyzing the open approach, certain preliminary studies indicate that robotic prostatectomy has similar outcomes in short-term oncologic control, continence and potency. Initial long-term quality-of-life outcomes have demonstrated priority results for robotic radical prostatectomy, compared to open radical prostatectomy.

Keywords: robotic, prostate cancer, lymph node dissection, prostatectomy,

pdf - Download FULL TEXT /PDF 841 KB/
Please cite this article as: Anakievski D, Marinov R, Gocheva I, Nikolov V, Abushev P. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with da Vinci Xi: our initial experience. J of IMAB. 2022 Jan-Mar;28(1):4310-4315.
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2022281.4310

Corresponding AutorCorrespondence to: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Deyan Anakievski M.D., University Hospital St. Marina Head of Clinic of Urology; 1, Hristo Smirnenski Blvd., 9010 Varna, Bulgaria; E-mail: dejan_anakievski@yahoo.com

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249. [PubMed].
2. Cancer Incidence in Bulgaria, 2014 & 2015. Sofia, National Oncological Hospital and Bulgarian National Cancer Registry, 2017. Vol. 25. [Internet]
3. Julia-Romero C, Rechi-Sierra K, Juan-Escudero JU. [New recommendations for prostate cancer screening with PSA]. [in Spanish] Semergen. 2021 Jul-Aug;47(5):342-347. [PubMed].
4. Michaeli T, Michaeli D. Prostate cancer follow-up costs in Germany from 2000 to 2015. J Cancer Surviv. 2022 Feb;16(1):86-94. [PubMed].
5. Magnani CJ, Bievre N, Baker LC, Brooks JD, Blayney DW, Hernandez-Boussard T. Real-world evidence to estimate prostate cancer costs for first-line treatment or active surveillance. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 Jan;23:20-29. [PubMed]
6. Okhawere KE, Shih IF, Lee SH, Li Y, Wong JA, Badani KK. Comparison of 1-Year Health Care Costs and Use Associated With Open vs Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e212265. [PubMed].
7. Nathan A, Fricker M, De Groote R, Arora A, Phuah Y, Flora K, et al. Salvage versus primary robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity-matched comparative effectiveness study from a high-volume tertiary centre. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2021 May;27:43-52. [Pubmed]
8. Faria EF, Maciel CVM, Berger A, Mitre A, Dauster B, Freitas CH Jr, et al. Recommendations on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a Brazilian experts' consensus. J Robot Surg. 2021 Dec;15(6):829-839. [PubMed]
9. Uy M, Cassim R, Kim J, Hoogenes J, Shayegan B, Matsumoto ED. Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal approach for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg. 2021 Apr 27. [PubMed]
10. Stolzenburg JU, Holze S, Neuhaus P, Kyriazis I, Do HM, Dietel A, et al. Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic surgery: outcomes from the first multicentre, randomised, patient-blinded controlled trial in radical prostatectomy (LAP-01). Eur Urol. 2021 Jun;79(6):750-759. [PubMed]
11. Ficarra V, Rossanese M, Crestani A, Alario G, Mucciardi G, Isgro A, et al. Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using the novel urethral fixation technique versus standard vesicourethral anastomosis. Eur Urol. 2021 Apr;79(4):530-536. [PubMed]
12. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982 Sep;128(3):492-497. [PubMed]
13. Kumar A, Patel VR, Panaiyadiyan S, Seetharam Bhat KR, Moschovas MC, Nayak B. Nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: current perspectives. Asian J Urol. 2021 Jan;8(1):2-13. [PubMed]
14. Sokolov EA, Veliev EI, Veliev RA. [Feasibility and risks of nerve-sparing technique of radical prostatectomy in elderly patients]. [in Russian]  Urologiia. 2021 May;(2):57-61. [PubMed]

Received: 20 August 2021
Published online: 28 March 2022

back to Online Journal