Literature DB >> 19700296

A retrospective comparison of anesthetic management of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy versus radical retropubic prostatectomy.

Richard C D'Alonzo1, Tong J Gan, Judd W Moul, David M Albala, Thomas J Polascik, Cary N Robertson, Leon Sun, Philipp Dahm, Ashraf S Habib.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To compare anesthetic management and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) and radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) with general anesthesia.
DESIGN: Retrospective database study of RALP and RRP patients at Duke University Medical Center from 6/2003 to 6/2006.
SETTING: University teaching hospital. PATIENTS: 541 ASA physical status I, II, and III men, 280 of whom were RRP patients and 256 RALP patients. MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics, intraoperative fluids and blood products, hemodynamic parameters, pain scores in the Postanesthesia Care Unit (PACU), intraoperative and postoperative analgesic consumption, need for rescue antiemetics in the PACU, and intraoperative use of vasopressors and antihypertensives, were all recorded. Additional data included postoperative transfusion data; clinical status of the patient's cancer preoperatively and postoperatively; hematocrit, platelet count, and creatinine levels; and length of hospital stay. MAIN
RESULTS: Estimated blood loss (EBL) was higher for RRP than RALP patients (mean +/- SD; 1,087 +/- 853 mL vs. 287 +/- 317 mL; P < 0.0001). Likewise, 24% of RRP patients received red blood cell (RBC) transfusions intraoperatively, compared with 0.4% RALP patients (P < 0.0001). Intraoperatively, RALP patients received more antihypertensive agents (37% vs. 21%; P < 0.0001), and fewer vasopressors (63% vs. 78%; P < 0.0001) than did RRP patients. The two groups had similar morphine-equivalent opioid use intraoperatively, but in the PACU, RALP patients required fewer morphine equivalents (mean +/- SD; 11.4 +/- 7.7 mg vs. 14.9 +/- 9.8 mg; P < 0.0001). The RALP patients had longer surgical times (mean +/- SD; 296 +/- 76 vs.193 +/- 69 min; P < 0.0001) but shorter PACU stays (mean +/- SD; 113 +/- 55 min vs. 143 +/- 58 min; P < 0.0001) and shorter hospital stays (mean +/- SD; 44 +/- 77 hrs vs. 56 +/- 26 hrs; P = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS: Duration of surgery was greater with RALP, but it was associated with less EBL, fewer transfusions of blood products, and shorter PACU and hospital stays.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19700296     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.09.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Anesth        ISSN: 0952-8180            Impact factor:   9.452


  20 in total

Review 1.  Anesthetic considerations for robotic surgery.

Authors:  Jeong Rim Lee
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2014-01-28

2.  Comparison of anesthetic management and outcomes of robot-assisted versus open radical cystectomy.

Authors:  Terrence L Trentman; Sharon L Fassett; Dustin McGirr; Brad Anderson; Yu-Hui H Chang; Rafael Nunez Nateras; Erik P Castle; David M Rosenfeld
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2012-09-22

Review 3.  Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?

Authors:  Abbas Basiri; Jean Jmch de la Rosette; Shahin Tabatabaei; Henry H Woo; M Pilar Laguna; Hamidreza Shemshaki
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Myth busting patient's pain: comparing robotic-assisted verses open radical prostatectomies.

Authors:  Benjamin Condon; Dominic Bagguley; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-04

5.  Impact of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy on the management of general anesthesia: efficacy of blood withdrawal during a steep Trendelenburg position.

Authors:  Junichi Saito; Satoko Noguchi; Anna Matsumoto; Kei Jinushi; Toshinori Kasai; Tomoyuki Kudo; Masahiro Sawada; Futoshi Kimura; Tetsuya Kushikata; Kazuyoshi Hirota
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2015-02-22       Impact factor: 2.078

6.  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

7.  Effects of Bowel Preparation and Fluid Restriction in Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Patients.

Authors:  Gülşah Yılmaz Karaören; Nurten Bakan; Cafer Tayyar Yürük; Ali Osman Çetinkaya
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2015-02-05

Review 8.  Laparoscopic surgery: a narrative review of pharmacotherapy in pain management.

Authors:  Sari Sjövall; Merja Kokki; Hannu Kokki
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 9.546

9.  Does changeover by an experienced open prostatic surgeon from open retropubic to robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mean a step forward or backward?

Authors:  Michael Musch; Ulla Roggenbuck; Virgilijus Klevecka; Heinrich Loewen; Maxim Janowski; Yadollah Davoudi; Darko Kroepfl
Journal:  ISRN Oncol       Date:  2013-01-21

10.  Dedicated robotics team reduces pre-surgical preparation time.

Authors:  Michael S Lasser; Chintan K Patel; Sammy E Elsamra; Joseph F Renzulli; George E Haleblian; Gyan Pareek
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2012-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.