ABSTRACT Introduction Urolift® is a surgical modality to treat lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in patients with enlarged prostates (1). However, the inflammatory process caused by the device usually displaces the prostate’s anatomical landmarks and challenges surgeons performing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). In this video, we will illustrate several technical challenges in patients with Urolift ® who underwent RARP. Material and Methods We performed a video compilation with several surgical steps illustrating key aspects and critical details of the anterior bladder neck access, lateral bladder dissection from the prostate, and posterior prostate dissection to avoid ureteral and neural bundles injuries. Results We perform our RARP technique with our standard approach in all patients (2 -6). The beginning of the case is performed like every patient with an enlarged prostate. We first identify the anterior bladder neck and then complete its dissection with Maryland and Scissors. However, extra care must be taken in the anterior and posterior bladder neck approach due to the clips found during the dissection. The challenge starts when opening the lateral sides of the bladder until the base of the prostate. It is crucial to perform the bladder neck dissection beginning at the internal plane of the bladder wall. Such dissection is the easiest way to recognize the anatomical landmarks and potential foreign materials, such as clips, placed during previous surgeries. We cautiously work around the clip to avoid using cautery on the top of the metal clips because energy is transmitted from one edge to the other of the Urolift ®. This can be dangerous if the edge of the clip is close to the ureteral orifices. The clips are usually removed to minimize cautery conduction energy. Finally, after isolating and removing the clips, the prostate dissection and subsequent surgical steps are continued with our conventional technique. Before proceeding, we ensure that all clips are removed from the bladder neck to avoid complications during the anastomosis. Conclusions Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy in patients with Urolift ® is challenging due to modified anatomical landmarks and intense inflammatory processes in the posterior bladder neck. When dissecting the clips placed next to the base of the prostate, it is crucial to avoid cautery because energy conduction to the other edge of the Urolift ® can cause thermal damage to the ureters and neural bundles.

ABSTRACT Background: Global cancer incidence ranks Prostate Cancer (CaP) as the second highest overall, with Africa and the Caribbean having the highest mortality. Previous literature suggests disparities in CaP outcomes according to ethnicity, specifically functional and oncological are suboptimal in black men. However, recent data shows black men achieve post radical prostatectomy (RP) outcomes equivalent to white men in a universally insured system. Our objective is to compare outcomes of patients who self-identified their ethnicity as black or white undergoing RP at our institution. Materials and methods: From 2008 to 2017, 396 black and 4929 white patients underwent primary robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Exclusion criteria were concomitant surgery and cancer status not available. A propensity score (PS) match was performed with a 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 ratio without replacement. Primary endpoints were potency, continence recovery, biochemical recurrence (BCR), positive surgical margins (PSM), and post-operative complications. Results: After PS 1:1 matching, 341 black vs. 341 white men with a median follow-up of approximately 8 years were analyzed. The overall potency and continence recovery at 12 months was 52% vs 58% (p=0.3) and 82% vs 89% (p=0.3), respectively. PSM rates was 13.4 % vs 14.4% (p = 0.75). Biochemical recurrence and persistence PSA was 13.8% vs 14.1% and 4.4% vs 3.2% respectively (p=0.75). Clavien-Dindo complications (p=0.4) and 30-day readmission rates (p=0.5) were similar. Conclusion: In our study, comparing two ethnic groups with similar preoperative characteristics and full access to screening and treatment showed compatible RARP results. We could not demonstrate outcomes superiority in one group over the other. However, this data adds to the growing body of evidence that the racial disparity gap in prostate cancer outcomes can be narrowed if patients have appropriate access to prostate cancer management. It also could be used in counseling surgeons and patients on the surgical intervention and prognosis of prostate cancer in patients with full access to gold-standard screening and treatment.

ABSTRACT Introduction Several techniques of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using the da Vinci SP (SP) have been described since its clearance by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in 2018 ( 1 , 2 ). Even with the expanding literature about this robot, the SP technology has been restricted to a few centers in the US and Asia due to the recent release of this robot in the marked.3 In this scenario, we provided, in this video compilation, a consensus of SP referral centers describing the current approaches and techniques of da Vinci SP Radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP). Surgical Technique We have illustrated five different techniques, including transperitoneal, extraperitoneal, Retzius-sparing, transvesical, and transperineal ( 4 - 6 ). Each surgery demonstrated crucial steps from the trocar placement until anastomosis. All approaches follow anatomic concepts and landmarks to minimize positive surgical margins, optimize oncological outcomes and promote optimal functional recovery. The trocar placement and the use of an assistant port were selected according to the operative technique of each institution. None of these surgeries had intra- or postoperative complications, and the pain management until discharge was controlled without using narcotics. All patients were discharged in less than 16 hours of surgery. Conclusion Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy performed with the da Vinci SP is feasible and safe with optimal perioperative outcomes. Five different approaches were described in this video compilation, and we believe that the technical details provided by this multicentric collaboration are crucial for centers willing to initiate the SP approach to radical prostatectomy.