OBJECTIVES: This study compared oncologic and health-related quality-of-life outcomes among patients undergoing intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy. METHODS: Of 215 patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy, the approach was intraperitoneal in 48 and extraperitoneal in 167. Cancer control was evaluated using margin status. Recovery after surgery and functional health was assessed using the convalescence and recovery evaluation and expanded prostate cancer index composite questionnaires, respectively. RESULTS: Positive surgical margin rates were similar between approaches (14% extraperitoneal, 10% intraperitoneal; P = .63). Functional outcomes were slightly improved for those with the extraperitoneal approach (i.e., higher urinary irritation/obstruction scores at 3 months). The extraperitoneal group demonstrated higher activity (91.8 vs 83.3, P = .03) and cognitive scores (94.9 vs. 91.7, P = .04) at 6 weeks as well as higher gastrointestinal scores at 2 weeks (94.2 vs. 90.8, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: These data support efforts to broaden the adoption of the extraperitoneal approach for robotic prostatectomy.
OBJECTIVES: This study compared oncologic and health-related quality-of-life outcomes among patients undergoing intraperitoneal or extraperitoneal robotic prostatectomy. METHODS: Of 215 patients undergoing robotic prostatectomy, the approach was intraperitoneal in 48 and extraperitoneal in 167. Cancer control was evaluated using margin status. Recovery after surgery and functional health was assessed using the convalescence and recovery evaluation and expanded prostate cancer index composite questionnaires, respectively. RESULTS: Positive surgical margin rates were similar between approaches (14% extraperitoneal, 10% intraperitoneal; P = .63). Functional outcomes were slightly improved for those with the extraperitoneal approach (i.e., higher urinary irritation/obstruction scores at 3 months). The extraperitoneal group demonstrated higher activity (91.8 vs 83.3, P = .03) and cognitive scores (94.9 vs. 91.7, P = .04) at 6 weeks as well as higher gastrointestinal scores at 2 weeks (94.2 vs. 90.8, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: These data support efforts to broaden the adoption of the extraperitoneal approach for robotic prostatectomy.
Authors: M Wolfram; R Bräutigam; T Engl; W Bentas; S Heitkamp; M Ostwald; W Kramer; J Binder; R Blaheta; D Jonas; W-D Beecken Journal: World J Urol Date: 2003-07-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Louis Potters; Carol Morgenstern; Emil Calugaru; Paul Fearn; Anup Jassal; Joseph Presser; Edward Mullen Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Matthew T Gettman; András Hoznek; Laurent Salomon; Ran Katz; Tomasz Borkowski; Patrick Antiphon; Adrian Lobontiu; Clément-Claude Abbou Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; Rodney L Dunn; J Stuart Wolf; Martin G Sanda; David P Wood; Scott M Gilbert; Alon Z Weizer; James E Montie; John T Wei Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-06-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Frederik Wessels; Maximilian Lenhart; Manuel Neuberger; Julia Mühlbauer; Johannes Huber; Johannes Breyer; Philipp Nuhn; Maurice S Michel; Julian Koenig; Maximilian C Kriegmair Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 4.226