Abstract
Introduction The learning curve for retzius sparing robotic radical prostatectomy is not fully understood. This study attempts to identify the learning-curve across the first 130 cases of a single surgeon.
Methods All retzius sparing robotic radical prostatectomy cases performed by a single surgeon between April 2019 and July 2022 were included. Cases were divided chronologically into 3 groups.
Results 130 RS-RARP cases were identified. Statistically significant differences were found between groups in several areas. Median patient age increased between group 1 (59yrs) and Group 3 (66.5yrs) (P=0.04). Proportion of patients with stage >T2 increased between Group 1 (27.9%) and Group 2 (41.9%) (P=0.036). Median console time increased between Group 1 (120 mins) and Group 2 (150 mins,) (P=0.01). Median gland weight increased between Group 1 (28g) and Group 3 (35.5g) (P<0.001). Positive surgical margin rate fell between Group 1 (30.2%) and Group 3 (9.1%).
Conclusions The complexity of cases increased over the learning curve, reflected in older patients, larger prostates and higher stage disease, but the positive surgical margin rate improved with experience. Safety and functional outcomes are excellent throughout. The learning curve might be facilitated by careful case selection favouring smaller prostates with less advanced disease.
Competing Interest Statement
all authors confirm they have no conflict of interest that are relevant to the content of this article
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust waived ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Declarations
Funding: No funding was received for conducting this study
Conflicts of interest: all authors confirm they have no conflict of interest that are relevant to the content of this article
Ethics Approval/consent to participate/consent to publication: All patients were registered as part of The BAUS national outcomes audit and registered with the institutional audit department (Ref. PRN8750). As a registered audit, NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) stated that no ethical approval was needed. All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. All patients gave informed signed written consent as best known at the time of intervention after discussion with the relevant surgeon and multi-disciplinary team.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
