Pros and cons of Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) versus Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL) have often been highlighted when one discusses on the management of renal stones. An oft quoted point is that PCNL entails a prolonged hospital stay whereas ESWL sessions are day surgical in nature. However, PCNL has superior stone clearance rate as compared to ESWL especially for lower pole stones. In addition, PCNL is more suitable for large bulk stones and when ancillary procedures are required e.g. endopyelotomy. The first 50 cases of successful tubeless PCNL were reported by Bellman et al in 1997. The remarkable recovery of patients in their series encouraged them to employ this technique as their technique of choice for the majority of their cases. A similar technique was employed on endopyelotomy by Liang et al and they concluded that this was a safe, less morbid and effective technique. We report our first case of tubeless PCNL.
Robotic surgery was started in the Department of Urology, Hospital Kuala Lumpur, in April 2004. We present our experience in developing the program and report the results of our first 50 cases of robotic radical prostatectomy. A three-arm da Vinci robotic system was installed in our hospital in March 2004. Prior to installation, the surgeons underwent training at various centers in the United States and Paris. The operating theatre was renovated to house the system. Subsequently, the initial few cases were done with the help of proctors. Data were prospectively collected on all patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for localized carcinoma of the prostate. Fifty patients underwent robot assisted radical prostatectomy from March 2004 to June 2005. Their ages ranged from 52 to 75 years, (average age 60.2 years). PSA levels ranged from 2.5 to 35 ng/ml (mean 10.6 ng/ml). Prostate volume ranged from 18 to 130 cc (average 32.4 cc). Average operating time for the first 20 cases was 4 h and for the next 30 cases was 2.5 h. Patients were discharged 1-3 days post-operatively. Catheters were removed on the fifth day following a cystogram. The positive margin rate as defined by the presence of cancer cells at the inked margin was 30%. Twenty-one patients had T1c disease and one had T1b on clinical staging. Of these, two were apical margin positive. Twenty-six patients had T2 disease and eight of them were apical margin positive. Two patients had T3 disease, one of whom was apical margin positive. Five patients (10%) had PSA recurrence. Five patients had a poorly differentiated carcinoma and the rest had Gleason 6 or 7. Eighty percent of the patients were continent on follow-up at 3 months. Of those who were potent before the surgery, 50% were potent at 3-6 months. The robotic surgery program was successfully implemented at our center on the lines of a structured program, developed at Vattikuti Urology Institute (VUI). We succeeded in creating a team and safely implemented the robotic program in our system. Adequate funding and extensive training followed by a short term proctoring are essential for this implementation.