INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) has been touted as an alternative to open simple prostatectomy (OSP) to treat large gland benign prostatic hyperplasia. Our study assesses our institution's experience with RASP and reviews the literature. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review from January 2011 to November 2013 of all patients undergoing RASP and OSP. Operative and 90-day outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), transfusion requirements, and complication rates, were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were identified: 4 undergoing RASP and 28 undergoing OSP. There was no difference in mean age at surgery (69.3 vs. 75.2 years; p = 0.17), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (2.5 vs. 3.5; p = 0.19), and mean prostate volume on TRUS (239 vs. 180 mL; p = 0.09) in the robotic and open groups, respectively. There was a significant difference in the mean length of operation, with RASP exceeding OSP (161 vs. 79 min; p = 0.008). The mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the open group (835.7 vs. 218.8 mL; p = 0.0001). Mean LOS was shorter in the RASP group (2.3 vs. 5.5 days; p = 0.0001). No significant differences were noted in the 90-day transfusion rate (p = 0.13), or overall complication rate at 0% with RASP vs. 57.1% with OSP (p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest RASP has a shorter LOS and lower intraoperative volume of blood loss, with the disadvantage of a longer operating time, compared to OSP. It is a feasible technique and deserves further investigation and consideration at Canadian centres performing robotic prostatectomies.
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) has been touted as an alternative to open simple prostatectomy (OSP) to treat large gland benign prostatic hyperplasia. Our study assesses our institution's experience with RASP and reviews the literature. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review from January 2011 to November 2013 of all patients undergoing RASP and OSP. Operative and 90-day outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), transfusion requirements, and complication rates, were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were identified: 4 undergoing RASP and 28 undergoing OSP. There was no difference in mean age at surgery (69.3 vs. 75.2 years; p = 0.17), mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (2.5 vs. 3.5; p = 0.19), and mean prostate volume on TRUS (239 vs. 180 mL; p = 0.09) in the robotic and open groups, respectively. There was a significant difference in the mean length of operation, with RASP exceeding OSP (161 vs. 79 min; p = 0.008). The mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the open group (835.7 vs. 218.8 mL; p = 0.0001). Mean LOS was shorter in the RASP group (2.3 vs. 5.5 days; p = 0.0001). No significant differences were noted in the 90-day transfusion rate (p = 0.13), or overall complication rate at 0% with RASP vs. 57.1% with OSP (p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest RASP has a shorter LOS and lower intraoperative volume of blood loss, with the disadvantage of a longer operating time, compared to OSP. It is a feasible technique and deserves further investigation and consideration at Canadian centres performing robotic prostatectomies.
Authors: Vincenzo Serretta; Giuseppe Morgia; Luigi Fondacaro; Gaetano Curto; Antonio Lo bianco; Domenico Pirritano; Darwin Melloni; Fausto Orestano; Mario Motta; Michele Pavone-Macaluso Journal: Urology Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Riccardo Autorino; Homayoun Zargar; Mirandolino B Mariano; Rafael Sanchez-Salas; René J Sotelo; Piotr L Chlosta; Octavio Castillo; Deliu V Matei; Antonio Celia; Gokhan Koc; Anup Vora; Monish Aron; J Kellogg Parsons; Giovannalberto Pini; James C Jensen; Douglas Sutherland; Xavier Cathelineau; Luciano A Nuñez Bragayrac; Ioannis M Varkarakis; Daniele Amparore; Matteo Ferro; Gaetano Gallo; Alessandro Volpe; Hakan Vuruskan; Gaurav Bandi; Jonathan Hwang; Josh Nething; Nic Muruve; Sameer Chopra; Nishant D Patel; Ithaar Derweesh; David Champ Weeks; Ryan Spier; Keith Kowalczyk; John Lynch; Andrew Harbin; Mohan Verghese; Srinivas Samavedi; Wilson R Molina; Emanuel Dias; Youness Ahallal; Humberto Laydner; Edward Cherullo; Ottavio De Cobelli; David D Thiel; Mikael Lagerkvist; Georges-Pascal Haber; Jihad Kaouk; Fernando J Kim; Estevao Lima; Vipul Patel; Wesley White; Alexander Mottrie; Francesco Porpiglia Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Bertram Yuh; Rajesh Laungani; Adam Perlmutter; Daniel Eun; James O Peabody; James L Mohler; Hans Stricker; Khurshid A Guru Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Kamran Ahmed; Amel Ibrahim; Tim T Wang; Nuzhath Khan; Ben Challacombe; Muhammed Shamim Khan; Prokar Dasgupta Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Dor Golomb; Fernanda Gabrigna Berto; Jennifer Bjazevic; Jose A Gomez; Joseph L K Chin; Patrick P Luke; Stephen E Pautler Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-08-26 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: R Dotzauer; A La Torre; A Thomas; M P Brandt; K Böhm; R Mager; H Borgmann; W Jäger; M Kurosch; T Höfner; C Ruckes; A Haferkamp; I Tsaur Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Simone Scarcella; Daniele Castellani; Vineet Gauhar; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Carlo Giulioni; Pietro Piazza; Carlo Andrea Bravi; Ruben De Groote; Geert De Naeyer; Stefano Puliatti; Andrea Benedetto Galosi; Alexandre Mottrie Journal: Investig Clin Urol Date: 2021-11