BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complications of transperitoneal (TP) and extraperitoneal (EP) robotic radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2007 to April 2009, 105 patients underwent TP robotic radical prostatectomy, and 155 patients underwent EP robotic radical prostatectomy. Clinicopathological and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Postoperative complications and functional outcomes including potency and incontinence were assessed. RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar in the TP and EP groups. No significant differences in positive surgical margins were noted between the groups. The total operative time, number of lymph nodes removed, and estimated blood loss were also not significantly different. However, the robot console time was shorter for the EP group than for the TP group (89.1 vs. 107.8 minutes, p = 0.03). Postoperative pain scale scores were lower in the EP group than in the TP group (2.7 vs. 6.3, p < 0.001). The incidence of ileus and hernia were lower in the EP group; however, the incidence of lymphocele was higher in the EP group. Postoperative potency and continence rates were similar between the groups; however, the EP group had a faster recovery of continence compared with the TP group. CONCLUSIONS: The EP approach has similar oncological and perioperative results, less postoperative pain, less bowel-associated complication, and better functional outcomes than those of the TP approach. The EP approach may be an important alternative in robotic radical prostatectomy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the oncologic results, functional outcomes, and complications of transperitoneal (TP) and extraperitoneal (EP) robotic radical prostatectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From June 2007 to April 2009, 105 patients underwent TP robotic radical prostatectomy, and 155 patients underwent EP robotic radical prostatectomy. Clinicopathological and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Postoperative complications and functional outcomes including potency and incontinence were assessed. RESULTS:Patient demographics were similar in the TP and EP groups. No significant differences in positive surgical margins were noted between the groups. The total operative time, number of lymph nodes removed, and estimated blood loss were also not significantly different. However, the robot console time was shorter for the EP group than for the TP group (89.1 vs. 107.8 minutes, p = 0.03). Postoperative pain scale scores were lower in the EP group than in the TP group (2.7 vs. 6.3, p < 0.001). The incidence of ileus and hernia were lower in the EP group; however, the incidence of lymphocele was higher in the EP group. Postoperative potency and continence rates were similar between the groups; however, the EP group had a faster recovery of continence compared with the TP group. CONCLUSIONS: The EP approach has similar oncological and perioperative results, less postoperative pain, less bowel-associated complication, and better functional outcomes than those of the TP approach. The EP approach may be an important alternative in robotic radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Bruce L Jacobs; Jeffrey S Montgomery; Rodney L Dunn; Alon Z Weizer; David C Miller; David P Wood; J Stuart Wolf; Yun Zhang; John T Wei; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Surg Innov Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 2.058