PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate weight has an impact on the pathological and operative outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 1,847 consecutive patients who underwent robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution. Variables were compared across quartile distributions of prostate size as defined by weight, including group 1-less than 30 gm, group 2-30 to 49.9, group 3-50 to 69.9 and group 4-70 or greater. Factors assessed in this analysis were patient age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, pathological stage, margin status, operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, length of stay and rehospitalization rate. RESULTS: Patients with a larger prostate (group 4) were older (mean age 66.2 years), had higher pretreatment prostate specific antigen (median 6.5 ng/ml), lower Gleason score (mean 6.3), longer operative time (mean 3.2 hours), higher estimated blood loss (median 250 cc) and longer hospital stay (p = 0.0002). There was a trend toward higher risk disease based on D'Amico risk stratification and positive margin status in group 1, although evidence of extracapsular extension was more common in groups 2 and 3. There was no association between prostate size and body mass index, lymph node status, blood transfusion rate, seminal vesicle involvement and rehospitalization rate. CONCLUSIONS: Robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with an enlarged prostate is feasible with slightly longer operative time, urinary leakage rates and hospital stay. Pathologically larger prostates are generally associated with lower Gleason score and risk group stratification. One-year continence rates and biochemical recurrence rates are similar across all groups.
PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate weight has an impact on the pathological and operative outcomes of robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 1,847 consecutive patients who underwent robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our institution. Variables were compared across quartile distributions of prostate size as defined by weight, including group 1-less than 30 gm, group 2-30 to 49.9, group 3-50 to 69.9 and group 4-70 or greater. Factors assessed in this analysis were patient age, body mass index, prostate specific antigen, Gleason score, pathological stage, margin status, operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, length of stay and rehospitalization rate. RESULTS:Patients with a larger prostate (group 4) were older (mean age 66.2 years), had higher pretreatment prostate specific antigen (median 6.5 ng/ml), lower Gleason score (mean 6.3), longer operative time (mean 3.2 hours), higher estimated blood loss (median 250 cc) and longer hospital stay (p = 0.0002). There was a trend toward higher risk disease based on D'Amico risk stratification and positive margin status in group 1, although evidence of extracapsular extension was more common in groups 2 and 3. There was no association between prostate size and body mass index, lymph node status, blood transfusion rate, seminal vesicle involvement and rehospitalization rate. CONCLUSIONS: Robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in patients with an enlarged prostate is feasible with slightly longer operative time, urinary leakage rates and hospital stay. Pathologically larger prostates are generally associated with lower Gleason score and risk group stratification. One-year continence rates and biochemical recurrence rates are similar across all groups.