ABSTRACT Background and Objective Salvage robot assisted radical prostatectomy (sRARP) is performed for patients with biochemical or biopsy proven, localized prostate cancer recurrences after radiation or ablative therapies. Traditionally, sRARP has been avoided by lower volume surgeons due to technical demand and high complication rates. Post-radiation sRARP outcomes studies exist but remain few in number. With increasing use of whole gland and focal ablative therapies, updates on sRARP in this setting are needed. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of recently reviewed studies on the oncologic outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications after post-radiation and post-ablative sRARP. Tips and tricks are provided to guide surgeons who may perform sRARP. Materials and Methods We performed a non-systematic literature search of PubMed and MEDLINE for the most relevant articles pertaining to the outlined topics from 2010-2022 without limitation on study design. Only case reports, editorial comments, letters, and manuscripts in non-English languages were excluded. Key Content and Findings Salvage robotic radical prostatectomy is performed in cases of biochemical recurrence after radiation or ablative therapies. Oncologic outcomes after sRARP are worse compared to primary surgery (pRARP) though improvements have been made with the robotic approach when compared to open salvage prostatectomy. Higher pre-sRARP PSA levels and more advanced pathologic stage portend worse oncologic outcomes. Patients meeting low-risk, EAU-biochemical recurrence criteria have improved oncologic outcomes compared to those with high-risk BCR. While complication rates in sRARP are higher compared to pRARP, Retzius sparing approaches may reduce complication rates, particularly rectal injuries. In comparison to the traditional open approach, sRARP is associated with a lower rate of bladder neck contracture. In terms of functional outcomes, potency rates after sRARP are poor and continence rates are low, though Retzius sparing approaches demonstrate acceptable recovery of urinary continence by 1 year, post-operatively. Conclusions Advances in the robotic platform and improvement in robotic experience have resulted in acceptable complication rates after sRARP. However, oncologic and functional outcomes after sRARP in both the post-radiation and post-ablation settings are worse compared to pRARP. Thus, when engaging in shared decision making with patients regarding the initial management of localized prostate cancer, patients should be educated regarding oncologic and functional outcomes and complications in the case of biochemically recurrent prostate cancer that may require sRARP. (sRARP proven therapies Traditionally Postradiation Post number needed postradiation post postablative nonsystematic non systematic 20102022 2010 2022 2010-202 design reports comments letters nonEnglish English excluded pRARP (pRARP presRARP pre lowrisk, lowrisk low risk, risk low-risk EAUbiochemical EAU highrisk BCR injuries contracture year postoperatively. postoperatively operatively. operatively post-operatively However postablation ablation Thus 2010202 201 202 2010-20 201020 20 2010-2 20102 2 2010-

ABSTRACT Known laparoscopic and robotic assisted approaches and techniques for the surgical management of urological malignant and benign diseases are commonly used around the World. During the global pandemic COVID-19, urology surgeons had to reorganize their daily surgical practice. A concern with the use of minimally invasive techniques arose due to a proposed risk of viral transmission of the coronavirus disease with the creation of pneumoperitoneum. Due to this, we reviewed the literature to evaluate the use of laparoscopy and robotics during the pandemic COVID-19. A literature review of viral transmission in surgery and of the available literature regarding the transmission of the COVID-19 virus was performed up to April 30, 2020. We additionally reviewed surgical society guidelines and recommendations regarding surgery during this pandemic. Few studies have been performed on viral transmission during surgery. No study has been made regarding this area during minimally invasive urology cases. To date there is no study that demonstrates or can suggest the ability for a virus to be transmitted during surgical treatment whether open, laparoscopic or robotic. There is no society consensus on restricting laparoscopic or robotic surgery. However, there is expert consensus on modification of standard practices to minimize any risk of transmission. During the pandemic COVID-19 we recommend the use of specific personal protective equipment for the surgeon, anesthesiologist and nursing staff in the operating room. Modifications of standard practices during minimally invasive surgery such as using lowest intra-abdominal pressures possible, controlled smoke evacuation systems, and minimizing energy device usage are recommended.

Background The surgical management of patients with symptomatic metastatic or locally advanced recurrences involving the penis remains poorly characterized. The aim of the present abstract and video is to detail our experience in the surgical management of a specific patient with a locally advanced symptomatic recurrence of penile sarcoma secondary to prostate cancer treated with primary brachytherapy. Materials and Methods A 70 year old male patient initially treated for localized prostate cancer with interstitial brachytherapy at an outside facility developed an unfortunate secondary malignancy consisting of a locally advanced penile sarcoma involving as well the prostate and base of the bladder. Despite our best efforts to control his pain, he developed a very symptomatic local recurrence with a secondary penile abscess and purulent periurethral drainage. At this time, it was felt a surgical resection consisting of a total penectomy, urethrectomy, cystoprostatectomy, and ileal conduit urinary diversion would be the best option for local cancer control in this particular patient. Results The patient underwent the surgical resection without any complications as illustrated in this surgical video, with a jejunal intestinal mass identified at the time of surgery which was resected with a primary bowel anastomosis performed. The patient was discharged from hospital uneventfully with his symptomatic local recurrence being successfully managed and the patient no longer requiring oral narcotics for pain control. The pathological report confirmed a locally advanced sarcoma involving the penile, prostate, and bladder which was resected with negative surgical margins and the jejunal mass was confirmed to represent a small bowel sarcoma metastatic site. Conclusion As highlighted in the present video, the treatment of a symptomatic sarcoma local recurrence contiguously involving the penis can be successfully managed provided the patient is informed of the potential morbidity and psychosocial implications imparted by performing a total penectomy and adjacent organ resection.

Purpose: The management of penile cancer has evolved as less invasive techniques are applied in the treatment of the primary tumor and inguinal lymph nodes. Materials and Methods: Herein we review the literature focusing on advances in the preservation of the phallus as well as less morbid procedures to evaluate and treat the groins. Results: Promising imaging modalities for staging are discussed. New techniques are described and tables provided for penile preservation. We also review the contemporary morbidity of modified surgical forms for evaluation of the inguinal nodes. Conclusions: Advances in surgical technique have made phallic preservation possible in a greater number of primary penile cancers. The groins can be evaluated for metastasis with greater accuracy through new radiologic means as well as with less morbid modified surgical techniques.