OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes and complications of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 18 cases of prostate cancer treated by 3D LRP and another 32 by 2D LRP. We compared the general data, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage time and hospital stay, Gleason scores, and incidence of complications between the two groups of patients. RESULTS: All the operations were successful and none was transferred to open surgery. The two groups of patients were similar in terms of age, body mass index, Gleason scores, and clinical stages. However, compared with the 2D LRP group, the 3D LRP group showed significantly shorter operation time ([180.2 ± 69.1] vs [118.3 ± 55.1] min, P < 0.01), less blood loss ([236.5 ± 60.6] vs [89.1 ± 35.2] ml, P < 0.01), less postoperative drainage time ([7.1 ± 1.1] vs [5.3 ± 2.1] d, P < 0.01), shorter postoperative hospital stay ([20.2 ± 5.5] vs [14.4 ± 7.2] d, P < 0.01), and lower incidence of perioperative complications (3.1% vs 0, P < 0.01). The incisal margin was pathologically negative in both groups and urinary incontinence was found in neither at 6 months after surgery (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: 3D LRP, with its advantages of shorter operative time, faster recovery, and better outcomes than 2D LRP in the treatment of prostate cancer, deserves general application in lower-level hospitals.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes and complications of 3D versus 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( LRP) in the treatment of prostate cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 18 cases of prostate cancer treated by 3D LRP and another 32 by 2D LRP. We compared the general data, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage time and hospital stay, Gleason scores, and incidence of complications between the two groups of patients. RESULTS: All the operations were successful and none was transferred to open surgery. The two groups of patients were similar in terms of age, body mass index, Gleason scores, and clinical stages. However, compared with the 2D LRP group, the 3D LRP group showed significantly shorter operation time ([180.2 ± 69.1] vs [118.3 ± 55.1] min, P < 0.01), less blood loss ([236.5 ± 60.6] vs [89.1 ± 35.2] ml, P < 0.01), less postoperative drainage time ([7.1 ± 1.1] vs [5.3 ± 2.1] d, P < 0.01), shorter postoperative hospital stay ([20.2 ± 5.5] vs [14.4 ± 7.2] d, P < 0.01), and lower incidence of perioperative complications (3.1% vs 0, P < 0.01). The incisal margin was pathologically negative in both groups and urinary incontinence was found in neither at 6 months after surgery (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: 3D LRP, with its advantages of shorter operative time, faster recovery, and better outcomes than 2D LRP in the treatment of prostate cancer, deserves general application in lower-level hospitals.