Surgical Technique and Perioperative Outcomes of the “Sapienza” Urology Residency Program’s Trocar Placement Configuration During Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy (RARP): A Retrospective, Single-Centre Observational Study Comparing Experienced Attendings vs. Post-Graduate Year I–III Residents as Bedside Assistants

摘要

Background/Objectives: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) for the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) has been standardized over the last 20 years. At our institution, only n = 3 rob arms are used for RARP. In addition, n = 2, 12 mm lap trocars are placed for the bedside assistant symmetrically at the midclavicular lines, which allows for direct pelvic triangulation and greater involvement of the assisting surgeon. The aim of our study was to compare surgical and perioperative outcomes of RARP performed using our alternative trocar placement with no fourth robotic arm in the subgroups of experienced attending surgeons and post-graduate residents as bedside assistants. Residents’ satisfaction was also explored. Methods: RARPs performed within the urology residency program between 2019 and 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Only rob procedures performed using our 3+2 trocars configuration were included. Intra- and postoperative outcomes, as well as long-term functional outcomes including continence recovery and potency, were assessed, stratified by the level of expertise of the bedside assistant, i.e., an experienced attending or post-graduate Year I–III resident. Satisfaction of residents assigned to the two groups during their robotic rotation was evaluated considering three domains with a score from 1 to 10: insight into surgical procedure, confidence level, and gratification level. Results: Out of n = 281 RARP procedures, the bedside assistant was an attending in 104 cases and a resident in 177. Operative time was found to be slightly longer in cases where the second operator was a resident (attendings vs. residents: 134 ± 40 vs. 152 ± 24; p < 0.001). Postoperative hospitalization time was longer in patients in the resident group (attendings vs. residents: 3.9 ± 1.6 vs. 4.3 ± 1 days; p = 0.025). However, cases where the second operator was a resident had a lower rate of positive surgical margins, with rates of 19.7% in the resident and 43.3% in the attending surgeon cohorts (OR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.18–0.55). This difference remained significant in multivariate analysis. There was no significant difference in postoperative blood transfusion rates (attendings vs. residents: 1.9% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.6). Similarly, long-term functional outcomes in terms of erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence rates mostly overlapped between groups. The mean score in all three domains evaluating residents’ satisfaction was significantly higher when residents actively participated in the surgical procedure as bedside assistants (p = 0.02, p = 0.004, and p < 0.001, respectively, for insights into surgical procedure, confidence level, and gratification level). Conclusions: These findings provide insight into how an alternative port positioning during RARP could improve the involvement of the bedside assistant, particularly residents, without compromising perioperative outcomes or surgical safety.