Effect of 3D Modeling of S-fusion software on Positive surgical Margins in Patients who Underwent Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Randomized Prospective Study
Urology Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 01 (2025),
12 January 2025
,
Page 31-36
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v21i.8218
Abstract
Purpose: To investigate the effect of using three-dimensional (3D) modeling before the surgery on positive surgical margins (PSM) in patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).
Materials and Methods: A prospective data analysis of 81 patients who underwent RRP between April 2021 and December 2023 was performed. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. In “3D group” (n:41), patients were evaluated by the surgeon and radiologist by using a 3D modeling of the mpMRI images which were done by two experienced radiologists just before the surgery. In “non-3D group” (n:40), the surgeon evaluated the mpMRI scans and reports by himself without a 3D modeling of the mpMRI before the operation. Finally, positive surgical margins of two groups were compared.
Results: The mean age of the patients was 66.7 ± 5.2 and 65.3±4.9 years in 3D group and non-3D group, respectively. (p = .65) Preoperative PSA value, prostate volume, preoperative PIRADS 4 and PIRADS 5 scores, postoperative ISUP grades and T stages were statistically similar in both groups. (p > .05) The PSM rate was 24 (29.6%) in the overall patient population. PSM was detected in 6 (14.6%) and 18 (45%) of the patients in 3D group and non-3D group, respectively. (p = .005)
Conclusion: Using a 3D modeling of the mpMRI images before the surgery decreased the PSM rates after radical retropubic prostatectomy. The present study also reveals the importance of collaboration between radiologists and urologists in the accurate preoperative evaluation of prostate cancer.
- radical retropubic prostatectomy, 3D modeling, positive surgical margin
How to Cite
References
Basiri A,. Incidence, Gleason Score and Ethnicity Pattern of Prostate Cancer in the Multi-ethnicity Country of Iran During 2008-2010. Urol J. 2020 May 4;17(6):602-606.
Bergengren O, Pekala KR, Matsoukas K, et al. 2022 Update on Prostate Cancer Epidemiology and Risk Factors—A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2023;84:191-206.
Moretti TBC, Magna LA, Reis LO. Radical Prostatectomy Technique Dispute: Analyzing Over 1.35 Million Surgeries in 20 Years of History. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2023;21:e271-8.
Adolfsson, J. Watchful waiting and active surveillance: the current position. BJU Int. 2008;102:10-4
Lantz A, Bock D, Akre O, et al. Functional and Oncological Outcomes After Open Versus Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy for Localised Prostate Cancer: 8-Year Follow-up. Eur Urol. 2021;80:650-60.
Canda AE, Aksoy SF, Altinmakas E, et al. Virtual reality tumor navigated robotic radical prostatectomy by using three-dimensional reconstructed multiparametric prostate MRI and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT images: A useful tool to guide the robotic surgery? BJUI Compass. 2020;1:108-15.
Porpiglia F, Checcucci E, Amparore D, et al. Augmented-reality robot-assisted radical prostatectomy using hyper-accuracy three-dimensional reconstruction (HA3D™) technology: a radiological and pathological study. BJU Int. 2019;123:834-45.
Schiavina R, Bianchi L, Lodi S, et al. Real-time Augmented Reality Three-dimensional Guided Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Preliminary Experience and Evaluation of the Impact on Surgical Planning. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:1260-7.
Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol.1982;128:492-7.
Binder J, Jones J, Bentas W, et al. Roboterunterstützte Laparoskopie in der Urologie. Radikale Prostatektomie und rekonstruktive retroperitoneale Eingriffe [Robot-assisted laparoscopy in urology. Radical prostatectomy and reconstructive retroperitoneal interventions]. Urologe A. 2002;41:144-9.
Ceylan C, Tonyali S, Keles K. Impact of positive surgical margin on biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy in locally advanced prostate cancer. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2016;32:514-17.
Van den Broeck T, van den Bergh RCN, Arfi N, et al. Prognostic Value of Biochemical Recurrence Following Treatment with Curative Intent for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol. 2019;75:967-87.
Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C, et al. Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol. 2012;62:333-40.
von Bodman C, Brock M, Roghmann F, et al. Intraoperative frozen section of the prostate decreases positive margin rate while ensuring nerve sparing procedure during radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013;190:515-20.
Köseoğlu E, Kulaç İ, Armutlu A, et al. Intraoperative Frozen Section via Neurosafe During Robotic Radical Prostatectomy in the Era of Preoperative Risk Stratifications and Primary Staging With mpMRI and PSMA-PET CT: Is There a Perfect Candidate? Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2023;21:602-11.
Wang S, Frisbie J, Keepers Z, et al. The Use of Three-dimensional Visualization Techniques for Prostate Procedures: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Focus. 2021;7:1274-86.
Simpfendörfer T, Baumhauer M, Müller M, et al. Augmented reality visualization during laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:1841-5.
Lanchon C, Custillon G, Moreau-Gaudry A, et al. Augmented Reality Using Transurethral Ultrasound for Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: Preclinical Evaluation. J Urol. 2016;196:244-50.
James A Eastham, Michael W Kattan, Elyn Riedel, et al. Variations among individual surgeons in the rate of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol. 2003;170:2292-5.
Gershman B, Meier SK, Jeffery MM, et al. Redefining and Contextualizing the Hospital Volume-Outcome Relationship for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Implications for Centralization of Care. J Urol. 2017;198:92-9.
- Abstract Viewed: 585 times
- 8218/pdf Downloaded: 425 times