Timo A J Laurila1, Wei Huang, David F Jarrard. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI 53972, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is being increasingly utilized. To assess the efficacy of the operation, we compared apical and overall margin status for RALP with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in a group of contemporary patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 98 consecutive RRPs and then 94 RALPs from a single institution. Groups were analyzed and matched with regard to preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cancer grade, pathologic stage, and tumor volume. Surgical margins were quantitated. RESULTS: Clinicopathologic parameters were compared and additional high risk patients were observed in the RRP vs. RALP group. To risk-adjust these patient groups, those meeting preoperative high risk criteria were excluded from further positive margin analysis. Postoperatively, the average tumor volume was 13% in both groups. Pathologic stage pT3 was similar between RRP (14%) and RALP (11%). A positive surgical margin (PSM) was found in 12 cases (14%) after RRP and 11 cases (13%) after RALP including apical margins. Positive margins at the apex, non-apex, and both were statistically similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, no differences were seen between robotic prostatectomy with regard to apical or overall margin status compared with open prostatectomy in lower risk patients. This suggests that despite improved visualization, RALP generates a similar margin status as RRP.
OBJECTIVE: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is being increasingly utilized. To assess the efficacy of the operation, we compared apical and overall margin status for RALP with radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) in a group of contemporary patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 98 consecutive RRPs and then 94 RALPs from a single institution. Groups were analyzed and matched with regard to preoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA), cancer grade, pathologic stage, and tumor volume. Surgical margins were quantitated. RESULTS: Clinicopathologic parameters were compared and additional high risk patients were observed in the RRP vs. RALP group. To risk-adjust these patient groups, those meeting preoperative high risk criteria were excluded from further positive margin analysis. Postoperatively, the average tumor volume was 13% in both groups. Pathologic stage pT3 was similar between RRP (14%) and RALP (11%). A positive surgical margin (PSM) was found in 12 cases (14%) after RRP and 11 cases (13%) after RALP including apical margins. Positive margins at the apex, non-apex, and both were statistically similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, no differences were seen between robotic prostatectomy with regard to apical or overall margin status compared with open prostatectomy in lower risk patients. This suggests that despite improved visualization, RALP generates a similar margin status as RRP.
Authors: Ahmed Magheli; Mark L Gonzalgo; Li-Ming Su; Thomas J Guzzo; George Netto; Elizabeth B Humphreys; Misop Han; Alan W Partin; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Julianna Padavano; Lynn Shaffer; Elizabeth Fannin; John Burgers; Wayne Poll; Eric S Ward; Kevin Banks; Jeffrey G Bell Journal: JSLS Date: 2011 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 2.172