Literature DB >> 16093986

Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective assessment of postoperative pain.

Todd M Webster1, S Duke Herrell, Sam S Chang, Michael S Cookson, Roxelyn G Baumgartner, Laura W Anderson, Joseph A Smith.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic prostatectomy, whether or not coupled with robotic assistance, is often considered less invasive than open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). Minimal postoperative pain has been reported following robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) but there have been few comparative studies with RRP. We compared perioperative narcotic use and patient reported pain in a prospective patient series.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between June 2003 and May 2004, 314 patients underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution, including RALP in 159, RRP in 154 and conversion in 1. All patients were treated on a postoperative clinical pathway that included 30 mg ketorolac intravenously immediately postoperatively, followed by 15 mg intravenously every 6 hours. No regional anesthesia (epidural/spinal) narcotics or patient controlled analgesic pumps were used. All narcotic use was converted to morphine sulfate equivalents for purpose of analysis. A Likert scale of 0 to 10 was used to assess pain on the day of surgery, and on postoperative days 1 and 14.
RESULTS: The total mean morphine sulfate equivalent +/- SD in patients in the RALP and RRP groups was low and, when corrected for length of stay, it was not statistically different (22.41 +/- 1.13 vs 23.01 +/- 1.16 mg, p = 0.72). Mean Likert pain perception scores were low at all time points in the RALP and RRP groups but statistically lower on the day of surgery in the RALP cohort (2.05 +/- 1.99 vs 2.60 +/- 2.25, p = 0.027). Patient reported mean pain scores were almost identical for RALP vs RRP on postoperative days 1 (1.76 +/- 1.87 vs 1.73 +/- 1.77, p = 0.880) and 14 (2.51 +/- 1.91 vs 2.42 +/- 1.84, p = 0.722).
CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative narcotic use and patient reported pain are low regardless of the surgical approach used for radical prostatectomy. RALP did not provide a clinically meaningful decrease in pain compared with RRP, primarily because of the low pain scores reported in each group. Outcomes other than pain will ultimately determine the role of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and RALP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16093986     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000169455.25510.ff

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  37 in total

1.  Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy: The European and US Experience.

Authors:  Julia Finkelstein; Elisabeth Eckersberger; Helen Sadri; Samir S Taneja; Herbert Lepor; Bob Djavan
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2010

Review 2.  Critical comparison of laparoscopic, robotic, and open radical prostatectomy: techniques, outcomes, and cost.

Authors:  Matthew T Gettman; Michael L Blute
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 3.  Novel techniques for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: evidence of efficacy?

Authors:  Marnie R Robinson; Judd W Moul
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Robot-assisted versus pure laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Francois Rozet; Justin Harmon; Xavier Cathelineau; Eric Barret; Guy Vallancien
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2006-03-17       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  [Robotic surgery in urology].

Authors:  S Buse; C Gilfrich; M Hohenfellner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  A consensus document on robotic surgery.

Authors:  D M Herron; M Marohn
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 7.  Outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Declan G Murphy; Benjamin J Challacombe; Anthony J Costello
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 3.285

8.  Status of radical prostatectomy in 2009: is there medical evidence to justify the robotic approach?

Authors:  Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2009

9.  [Minimally invasive vs. open surgical procedures in the treatment of prostate cancer].

Authors:  M Wirth; M Fröhner
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 0.639

10.  Robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic and urologic oncology: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2010-12-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.