PURPOSE: A cohort of more than 1,000 patients undergoing open minimally invasive radical retropubic prostatectomy (mini-lap RRP, 8.0 cm incision) is compared to published series of laparoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 209 consecutive patients undergoing mini-lap RRP at Emory University Hospital was evaluated. Characteristics noted were patient age, comorbidity status, preoperative prostate specific antigen, operative time, perioperative complications, blood transfusions, pathological staging, potency and continence. Postoperative analgesia was analyzed in a cohort of 30 consecutive recent patients. These data were compared to published reports of similar perioperative characteristics in laparoscopic RRP series. RESULTS: Differences between the cohorts of patients reviewed were found in age, preoperative prostate specific antigen, operative time and rate of blood transfusion. The series were comparable in comorbidity status, postoperative complications, rates of incontinence, rates of impotence and margin positivity. Analgesic use was quantified in a small group of patients according to the amount of narcotic analgesia required during the postoperative hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-lap RRP can generally be performed in less time and at less cost than most laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. It can be performed with regional anesthesia and has excellent postoperative results compared to contemporary laparoscopic procedures. Mini-lap RRP requires less training than laparoscopic RRP. With its minimal morbidity, mini-lap RRP remains an attractive technique that can easily be adopted by the experienced retropubic surgeon.
PURPOSE: A cohort of more than 1,000 patients undergoing open minimally invasive radical retropubic prostatectomy (mini-lap RRP, 8.0 cm incision) is compared to published series of laparoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 209 consecutive patients undergoing mini-lap RRP at Emory University Hospital was evaluated. Characteristics noted were patient age, comorbidity status, preoperative prostate specific antigen, operative time, perioperative complications, blood transfusions, pathological staging, potency and continence. Postoperative analgesia was analyzed in a cohort of 30 consecutive recent patients. These data were compared to published reports of similar perioperative characteristics in laparoscopic RRP series. RESULTS: Differences between the cohorts of patients reviewed were found in age, preoperative prostate specific antigen, operative time and rate of blood transfusion. The series were comparable in comorbidity status, postoperative complications, rates of incontinence, rates of impotence and margin positivity. Analgesic use was quantified in a small group of patients according to the amount of narcotic analgesia required during the postoperative hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-lap RRP can generally be performed in less time and at less cost than most laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. It can be performed with regional anesthesia and has excellent postoperative results compared to contemporary laparoscopic procedures. Mini-lap RRP requires less training than laparoscopic RRP. With its minimal morbidity, mini-lap RRP remains an attractive technique that can easily be adopted by the experienced retropubic surgeon.