Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia and bothersome LUTS-a retrospective cohort study.

BPH is a common urological pathology that affects 2480 per 100,000 men worldwide. With a rising population and increased age expectancy, the prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is increasing (Awedew et al. in Lancet Healthy Longev 3(11), 2022). There are many surgical management options for BPH with LUTS, including open simple prostatectomy (OSP), holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP), transurethral resection of prostate (TURP), and transurethral electro vaporization of the prostate (TUVP) (Cho et al. in Int Neurourol J 24(1), 2020). However, these options often have a steep learning curve and increasing complexity with larger prostates. Robot-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) offers an alternative approach for large and very large glands for those already trained in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP), particularly as robotic surgery continues to increase in popularity and is steadily becoming the standard of care in the management of prostate disease (Madersbacher et al. in Gerontology 65(5), 2019). The aim of this study was to demonstrate the surgical outcomes for men undergoing RASP for bothersome LUTs and/or acute urinary retention (AUR) secondary to BPH. A retrospective study was performed which included 105 patients who underwent RASP for the treatment of BPH causing lower urinary tract symptoms or acute urinary retention. This study reviews the pre-operative, (age, PSA, weight, prostate size) operative (duration, histology, estimated blood loss and hospital length of stay) and post-operative (duration of indwelling catheter, trial of void outcome, complications and post-operative PSA) outcomes, to evaluate the effectiveness of RASP for the management of BPH with LUTS. Data were analyzed using standard descriptive measures and multivariate logistic regression for comparison of continuous variables, significance was set to a CI of 95%. The median age of patients was 75 years (IQR 70-78) with a median prostate size of 135.5 cc (IQR 112.25-162.25). Patient demographic and pre-operative LUTS assessments are summarized in Table 1. Median operative time was 60 min (IQR 50-80), estimated blood loss was 350 ml (IQR 200-563), specimen weight was 98.5 g (IQR 69.5-120). Prostate size on imaging directly impacted operative duration (CI 0.07-0.2, p =  < 0.001). Eleven (10.5%) of the patients involved in the review had a post-operative complication, two (1.9%) considered major complications Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3. There was a statistically increased risk of complications associated with advanced age and prostate size (p = 0.043 and p = 0.001). This study, although limited by its retrospective nature, demonstrates the safety and utility of robotic simple prostatectomy in the context of large and very large prostate volumes. In particular, it offers a safe alternative for men with large prostates who otherwise may not be suitable for endoscopic management. Further prospective and randomized control trials are needed to reinforce the efficacy of RASP to assess its functional and cost effectiveness long term.