OBJECTIVE To report on the initial four patients who had robotic salvage retropubic prostatectomy (SRP) for biochemical recurrence after radiation therapy, and to review the surgical outcome of robotic cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer in two patients who previously had prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Since February 2006, four patients had SRP for biochemical failure after radiation and/or brachytherapy. Transrectal biopsy of the prostate confirmed locally recurrent disease and a metastatic evaluation including bone scan and computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis were negative in all cases. The SRP was done using a six‐port transperitoneal approach. An additional two patients had a robotic cystoprostatectomy for bladder cancer, in whom radiation was provided previously for prostate cancer. A retrospective analysis of the immediate and short‐term surgical outcome was reviewed. RESULTS SRP was completed in all patients with no major complication or conversion to an open approach. The mean operative duration was 125 min, the mean (range) blood loss was 117 (50–250) mL and the mean hospital stay was 2.7 days. Of the four patients undergoing SRP, three had extracapsular extension and the first two had positive margins, while no patients had rectal injuries or significant blood loss. The lymph nodes were negative in all the patients. Three patients were continent within a month while one continued to use two to three pads/day at 3 weeks of follow‐up. In the two patients who had cystoprostatectomy there were no major complications or increased surgical difficulty. CONCLUSIONS SRP is technically possible and with limited perioperative morbidity. Further studies are warranted to validate the oncological and functional outcomes of SRP after radiation and/or brachytherapy. Moreover, the robotic approach for radical cystoprostatectomy in patients who have had prostate radiation is feasible, with no increase in perioperative morbidity.

Based on a meta-analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials there is no evidence to suggest a statistically significant difference in the efficacy of pain control between lidocaine gel and plain gel lubrication in men during flexible cystoscopy. This supports the conclusion that its benefit is limited to lubrication and any other perceived benefit is consistent with placebo.

No abstract

No abstract

transurethral resection (TURP) in the present era of screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is unclear. The study included 23 cases of pure DCP without acinar PA diagnosed on UB or TURP. Demographic information, serum PSA level, follow-up surgical procedures (RP, TURP or TRUSB) and outcome data were collected. RESULTSThe mean age of the men was 67.5 years and the mean PSA level before the procedure was 12.5 ng/mL; 14 cases were detected on UB and nine were diagnosed on TURP. The mean (range) follow-up was 4 (1-23) months after the initial procedure. In all, 21 (89%) patients had DCP or PA in follow-up procedures. Two (11%) patients had no residual cancer, one on RP and the other on two repeat TURPs. DCP or PA was found in 12 RP cases; four patients had Gleason score 7 PA, three of which were organ-confined, and eight had Gleason score ≥ 8 PA. Extraprostatic extension, seminal vesicle invasion and regional lymph node metastasis were present in seven, six and two cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONSMost DCP diagnosed on UB or TURP in this contemporary series was associated with aggressive PA, but a subset presented as a small periurethral tumour with no concomitant acinar PA, and was eradicated by the initial biopsy/TURP alone. We recommend that patients with a diagnosis of DCP on UB or TURP undergo follow-up TURP and TRUSB before radical surgery is offered.