ABSTRACT Introduction: To determine the impact of time from biopsy to surgery on outcomes following radical prostatectomy (RP) as the optimal interval between prostate biopsy and RP is unknown. Material and methods: We identified 7, 350 men who underwent RP at our institution between 1994 and 2012 and had a prostate biopsy within one year of surgery. Patients were grouped into five time intervals for analysis: ≤ 3 weeks, 4-6 weeks, 7-12 weeks, 12-26 weeks, and > 26 weeks. Oncologic outcomes were stratified by NCCN disease risk for comparison. The associations of time interval with clinicopathologic features and survival were evaluated using multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses. Results: Median time from biopsy to surgery was 61 days (IQR 37, 84). Median follow-up after RP was 7.1 years (IQR 4.2, 11.7) while the overall perioperative complication rate was 19.7% (1,448/7,350). Adjusting for pre-operative variables, men waiting 12-26 weeks until RP had the highest likelihood of nerve sparing (OR: 1.45, p = 0.02) while those in the 4-6 week group had higher overall complications (OR: 1.33, p = 0.01). High risk men waiting more than 6 months had higher rates of biochemical recurrence (HR: 3.38, p = 0.05). Limitations include the retrospective design. Conclusions: Surgery in the 4-6 week time period after biopsy is associated with higher complications. There appears to be increased biochemical recurrence rates in delaying RP after biopsy, for men with both low and high risk disease.

ABSTRACT Objectives: Radical prostatectomy (RP) for locally advanced prostate cancer may reduce the risk of metastasis and cancer-specific death. Herein, we evaluated the outcomes for patients with pT4 disease treated with RP. Materials and methods: Among 19,800 men treated with RP at Mayo Clinic from 1987 to 2010, 87 were found to have pT4 tumors. Biochemical recurrence (BCR)-free survival, systemic progression (SP) free survival and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association of clinic-pathological features with outcome. Results: Median follow-up was 9.8 years (IQR 3.6, 13.4). Of the 87 patients, 50 (57.5%) were diagnosed with BCR, 30 (34.5%) developed SP, and 38 (43.7%) died, with 11 (12.6%) dying of prostate cancer. Adjuvant androgen deprivation therapy was administered to 77 men, while 32 received adjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Ten-year BCR-free survival, SP-free survival, and OS was 37%, 64%, and 70% respectively. On multivariate analysis, the presence of positive lymph nodes was marginally significantly associated with patients' risk of BCR (HR: 1.94; p=0.05), while both positive lymph nodes (HR 2.96; p=0.02) and high pathologic Gleason score (HR 1.95; p=0.03) were associated with SP. Conclusions: Patients with pT4 disease may experience long-term survival following RP, and as such, when technically feasible, surgical resection should be considered in the multimodal treatment approach to these men.

Objectives: By addressing the performance limitations of standard laparoscopy, robotics has developed a role in urology. While greatest use has been in pelvic prostatectomy, the role of robotics is expanding to other retroperitoneal surgeries. We review the feasibility of robotic radical and partial nephrectomy. Methods: Medline literature search of robotic nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy was performed. Data was compiled for the review as well as personal experience. Results: Multiple studies have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of robotic assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy and partial nephrectomy. Operative time is increased with the robotic system compared to pure laparoscopic surgery. Although complication rates are low, robotic renal surgery requires two skilled surgeons. Conclusion: While the use of robotics in renal surgery may enhance suturing abilities, currently, this system requires two skilled surgeons and significant operative time. The exact role of robotics in extirpative renal surgery remains unclear and may require technical and surgical advancements before robotic renal surgery is widely accepted.

Objetivos: La robótica esta desarrollando un papel en la urología, tratando de resolver las limitaciones, en cuanto a su realización, de la laparoscopia estándar. A pesar de que se ha usado principalmente en la prostatectomía radical, el papel de la robótica se está expandiendo a otras cirugías retroperineales. Revisamos la viabilidad de la nefrectomía parcial y radical robótica. Métodos: Se analizó la literatura científica en relación a la nefrectomía parcial y radical robótica. Se revisan los datos recopilados así como la experiencia personal. Resultados: La viabilidad y seguridad de la nefrectomía laparoscópica asistida por robot y de la nefrectomía parcial han sido demostradas por múltiples estudios. El tiempo quirúrgico es mayor con el sistema robótico comparado con el de la laparoscopia pura. Aunque los índices de complicaciones son bajos, la cirugía renal robótica requiere dos cirujanos experimentados. Conclusión: Mientras que el uso de la robótica en la cirugía renal puede aumentar las habilidades en la sutura, en la actualidad, este sistema requiere dos cirujanos expertos y un mayor tiempo quirúrgico. El papel exacto de la robótica en la cirugía renal exerética no está aún muy claro y puede necesitar avances quirúrgicos y técnicos antes de que la cirugía renal robótica sea aceptada mayoritariamente.