BACKGROUND: To compare the surgical outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) performed via 3 different approaches: retropubic (RRP), laparoscopic-assisted (LRP), and robot-assisted (RARP), in a single non-academic regional center by a single surgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of patients undergoing RP from 2005 to 2014 were reviewed. The standard approach changed through the years: RRP (n = 380, years 2005 to 2008), LRP (n = 240, years 2009 to 2011), and RARP (n = 262, years 2012 to 2014). Our analysis included the last consecutive 100 RP for each surgical technique by a single surgeon. A logistic regression model adjusted for pre-and postoperative variables was done to evaluate whether transfusion, conversion, and post-operative complication rates were influenced by the approach. RESULTS: RARP was associated with significantly lower blood loss (400 vs. 600 and 600 ml, respectively), transfusion (6 vs. 21 and 21%, respectively), and shorter hospital stay (6 vs. 7 and 8 days, respectively), compared to LRP and RRP, and a lower conversion rate (1 vs. 12%) compared to LRP. Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounders confirmed that the risk of transfusion and conversion was significantly lower in the RARP group compared to the LRP and RRP groups. The RARP group was also associated with a significantly lower risk of complications compared to the RRP group and with a trend in favor of the RARP group compared to the LRP group. The 1-year continence rate was significantly higher in the RARP group compared to the RRP and LRP groups (80 vs. 72 and 68%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The surgical approach affected the operative outcomes in a regional setting. The advantages of RARP over RRP (complications, transfusion, conversion, hospital stay, 1-year continence) were over LRP as well, with the only exception being complications.
BACKGROUND: To compare the surgical outcomes of radical prostatectomy (RP) performed via 3 different approaches: retropubic (RRP), laparoscopic-assisted (LRP), and robot-assisted (RARP), in a single non-academic regional center by a single surgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of patients undergoing RP from 2005 to 2014 were reviewed. The standard approach changed through the years: RRP (n = 380, years 2005 to 2008), LRP (n = 240, years 2009 to 2011), and RARP (n = 262, years 2012 to 2014). Our analysis included the last consecutive 100 RP for each surgical technique by a single surgeon. A logistic regression model adjusted for pre-and postoperative variables was done to evaluate whether transfusion, conversion, and post-operative complication rates were influenced by the approach. RESULTS: RARP was associated with significantly lower blood loss (400 vs. 600 and 600 ml, respectively), transfusion (6 vs. 21 and 21%, respectively), and shorter hospital stay (6 vs. 7 and 8 days, respectively), compared to LRP and RRP, and a lower conversion rate (1 vs. 12%) compared to LRP. Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounders confirmed that the risk of transfusion and conversion was significantly lower in the RARP group compared to the LRP and RRP groups. The RARP group was also associated with a significantly lower risk of complications compared to the RRP group and with a trend in favor of the RARP group compared to the LRP group. The 1-year continence rate was significantly higher in the RARP group compared to the RRP and LRP groups (80 vs. 72 and 68%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The surgical approach affected the operative outcomes in a regional setting. The advantages of RARP over RRP (complications, transfusion, conversion, hospital stay, 1-year continence) were over LRP as well, with the only exception being complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complication; Open retropubic prostatectomy; Prostate cancer; Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy
Authors: Antonio B Porcaro; Alberto Molinari; Alessandro Terrin; Nicolò De Luyk; Roberto Baldassarre; Matteo Brunelli; Stefano Cavalleri; Maria Angela Cerruto; Matteo Gelati; Gian Luca Salvagno; Gian Cesare Guidi; Walter Artibani Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2015-07-24
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jim C Hu; Nathanael D Hevelone; Marcos D Ferreira; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Martin G Sanda; Craig C Earle Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: John W Yaxley; Geoffrey D Coughlin; Suzanne K Chambers; Stefano Occhipinti; Hema Samaratunga; Leah Zajdlewicz; Nigel Dunglison; Rob Carter; Scott Williams; Diane J Payton; Joanna Perry-Keene; Martin F Lavin; Robert A Gardiner Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Walaa F Abdelmoaty; Christy M Dunst; Chris Neighorn; Lee L Swanstrom; Chet W Hammill Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.584