Managing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Penile Prosthesis: Surgical Tech-nique, Outcomes, and Literature Review.
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 3/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
8 patients (25%).
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
RARP (2016-2024), excluding those with prior pelvic radiation, malleable implants, or incomplete data
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
Biochemical recurrence was noted in 9.4% at 12-month median follow-up. [CONCLUSION] RARP in patients with a pre-existing penile prosthesis reservoir is technically feasible and safe, with no increase in procedure-related or reservoir-specific complications.
[INTRODUCTION] Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with pre-existing inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) poses technical challenges due to the intrapelvic reservoir.
APA
Sharma R, Ozawa Y, et al. (2026). Managing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Penile Prosthesis: Surgical Tech-nique, Outcomes, and Literature Review.. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2025.0467
MLA
Sharma R, et al.. "Managing Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in Men with Penile Prosthesis: Surgical Tech-nique, Outcomes, and Literature Review.." International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology, vol. 52, no. 1, 2026.
PMID
40986412
Abstract
[INTRODUCTION] Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in patients with pre-existing inflatable penile prostheses (IPP) poses technical challenges due to the intrapelvic reservoir. With rising rates of prostate cancer and IPP use, evidence on safely performing RARP in this group is limited. This study assesses the feasibility, safety, and perioperative outcomes of RARP in men with prior IPP.
[MATERIALS AND METHODS] We retrospectively analyzed 32 prostate cancer patients with functional three-piece IPPs who underwent RARP (2016-2024), excluding those with prior pelvic radiation, malleable implants, or incomplete data. Key adaptations included tailored port placement, cold dissection near the reservoir, site-specific retraction without reservoir removal, and intraoperative deflation as needed. Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were systematically assessed.
[RESULTS] Median age was 67 years (IQR 61-73). Follow up duration was 24 months from RARP. Median operative time and blood loss were 110 minutes (IQR 98-120) and 100 mL (IQR 50-120), respectively. No intraoperative prosthesis injuries occurred. Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complications were observed in 8 patients (25%). Median time to continence (≤1 pad/day) was 56 days (IQR 46-92). All IPPs remained functional postoperatively without revision. 31 patients were continent at 12 months. Pathologic pT2 disease was present in 16 (50%) patients; positive margins occurred in 4 (12.5%) patients. Biochemical recurrence was noted in 9.4% at 12-month median follow-up.
[CONCLUSION] RARP in patients with a pre-existing penile prosthesis reservoir is technically feasible and safe, with no increase in procedure-related or reservoir-specific complications.
[MATERIALS AND METHODS] We retrospectively analyzed 32 prostate cancer patients with functional three-piece IPPs who underwent RARP (2016-2024), excluding those with prior pelvic radiation, malleable implants, or incomplete data. Key adaptations included tailored port placement, cold dissection near the reservoir, site-specific retraction without reservoir removal, and intraoperative deflation as needed. Perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes were systematically assessed.
[RESULTS] Median age was 67 years (IQR 61-73). Follow up duration was 24 months from RARP. Median operative time and blood loss were 110 minutes (IQR 98-120) and 100 mL (IQR 50-120), respectively. No intraoperative prosthesis injuries occurred. Clavien-Dindo grade I-II complications were observed in 8 patients (25%). Median time to continence (≤1 pad/day) was 56 days (IQR 46-92). All IPPs remained functional postoperatively without revision. 31 patients were continent at 12 months. Pathologic pT2 disease was present in 16 (50%) patients; positive margins occurred in 4 (12.5%) patients. Biochemical recurrence was noted in 9.4% at 12-month median follow-up.
[CONCLUSION] RARP in patients with a pre-existing penile prosthesis reservoir is technically feasible and safe, with no increase in procedure-related or reservoir-specific complications.
MeSH Terms
Aged; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Feasibility Studies; Operative Time; Penile Prosthesis; Postoperative Complications; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Retrospective Studies; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome; Review Literature as Topic
같은 제1저자의 인용 많은 논문 (5)
- Debulking Chemotherapy Can Overcome Primary Resistance to Teclistamab in Relapsed Refractory Multiple Myeloma.
- Overcoming barriers in cancer therapy with oncolytic adenoviruses: Engineering strategies and clinical perspectives.
- Palladium-catalysed synthesis of small-molecule epigenetic inhibitors as anticancer therapeutics.
- In silico identification of deleterious NT5C2 and PRPS1 mutations driving thiopurine resistance in relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
- Prognostic Implications of Very High Decipher Scores in Prostate Cancer: Towards a Refined Genomic Risk Classification.