Literature DB >> 22489895

Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: robot-assisted laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy in a matched-pair analysis.

Andreas Martinschek1, Kathrin Heinzelmann, Manuel Ritter, Elmar Heinrich, Lutz Trojan.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) compromises the surgical outcome and pathologic findings in patient who underwent either radical robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) or open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) after TURP, because TURP is reported to complicate radical prostatectomy and there are conflicting data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 2008 to July 2010, 357 patients underwent RALP. Of these, 19 (5.3%) patients had undergone previous TURP. Operative and perioperative data of patients were compared with those of matched controls selected from a database of 616 post-RRP patients. Matching criteria were age, clinical stage, the level of preoperative prostate-specific-antigen, the biopsy Gleason score, the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score, and prostate volume assessed during transrectal ultrasonography. All RRP and RALP procedures were performed by experienced surgeons.
RESULTS: Mean time to prostatectomy was 67.4 months in the RALP group and 53.1 months in the RRP group. Mean operative time was 217 ± 51.9 minutes for RALP and 174 ± 57.7 minutes for RRP (P<0.05). The overall positive surgical margin rate was 15.8% in both groups (pT(2) tumors: 10.5% for RALP and 5.3% for RRP; P=1.0). Mean estimated blood loss was 333 ± 144 mL in RALP patients and 1103 ± 636 mL in RRP patients (P<0.001). The difference between preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin levels was 3.22 ± 0.98 g/dL for RALP and 5.85 ± 1.95 g/dL for RRP (P=0.0002). The RALP and RRP groups also differed in terms of hospital stay (8.58 ± 1.17 vs 11.74 ± 5.22 days; P=0.0037), duration of catheterization (7.95 ± 5.69 vs 11.78 ± 6.97 days; P=0.0016), postoperative complications according to the Clavien classification system (6 vs 15 patients; P=0.0027), and transfusion rate (0% vs 10.5%; P<0.001).
CONCLUSION: RALP offers advantages over open radical prostatectomy after previous surgery. Although both techniques are associated with adequate surgical outcomes, RALP appeared to be preferable in our population of patients with previous prostate surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22489895     DOI: 10.1089/end.2012.0074

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  4 in total

Review 1.  Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with previous prostate surgery and radiotherapy.

Authors:  Omer Acar; Tarık Esen
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2014-07-09

Review 2.  Comparison of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy and Open Radical Prostatectomy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Hyun Ju Seo; Na Rae Lee; Soo Kyung Son; Dae Keun Kim; Koon Ho Rha; Seon Heui Lee
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.759

Review 3.  Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy following open trans-vesical adenomectomy: A single centre experience and review of the literature.

Authors:  Fanourios Georgiades; Kostas Konstantinou; Chryssanthos Kouriefs
Journal:  Urologia       Date:  2020-12-10

Review 4.  Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Is More Beneficial for Prostate Cancer Patients: A System Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yuefeng Du; Qingzhi Long; Bin Guan; Lijun Mu; Juanhua Tian; Yumei Jiang; Xiaojing Bai; Dapeng Wu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-01-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.