Dipin Jayaprakash1, Keval Patel2,3, Mohamed Mithi1, Harish Neelamraju Lakshmi1, Shahsank Pandya1. 1. Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat India. 2. Department Of Surgical Oncology, Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, Ahmedabad, Gujarat India. 3. Aayushyam Speciality Hospital, First Floor, Akash -4 Complex, Near Ankur Cross Roads,Naranpura, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380014 India.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare our institutional outcomes of 3D laparoscopic when compared with open radical prostatectomy in terms of functional and oncological outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy during the period January 2016 to September 2019 at our institute. Out of 49 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, 23 were done by open approach and 25 were operated by 3D laparoscopy. One patient was lost to follow-up and was excluded from the study. Data were collected from medical records, and functional evaluation was done by telephonic interview. Data analysis was done by SPSS software to calculate overall and disease-free survival. Results: Laparoscopic arm patients had lesser blood loss, postoperative pain, hospital stay and wound-related issues although they had a longer operating time. Functional outcomes in terms of erectile dysfunction and incontinence were almost similar in both open and 3D laparoscopic approach. No statistically significant difference was observed for overall survival or disease-free survival. All shortcomings with the laparoscopic arm were improved as our experience increased with 3D laparoscopic prostatectomy. The outcomes of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were comparable to previously published data of robotic radical prostatectomy. Conclusions: 3D LRP is a feasible technique with similar oncological or functional outcomes and better perioperative outcomes as compared to ORP. Being cost-effective and with comparable outcomes it is a suitable alternative to RRP in resource-limited settings.
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare our institutional outcomes of 3D laparoscopic when compared with open radical prostatectomy in terms of functional and oncological outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent radical prostatectomy during the period January 2016 to September 2019 at our institute. Out of 49 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, 23 were done by open approach and 25 were operated by 3D laparoscopy. One patient was lost to follow-up and was excluded from the study. Data were collected from medical records, and functional evaluation was done by telephonic interview. Data analysis was done by SPSS software to calculate overall and disease-free survival. Results: Laparoscopic arm patients had lesser blood loss, postoperative pain, hospital stay and wound-related issues although they had a longer operating time. Functional outcomes in terms of erectile dysfunction and incontinence were almost similar in both open and 3D laparoscopic approach. No statistically significant difference was observed for overall survival or disease-free survival. All shortcomings with the laparoscopic arm were improved as our experience increased with 3D laparoscopic prostatectomy. The outcomes of 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy were comparable to previously published data of robotic radical prostatectomy. Conclusions: 3D LRP is a feasible technique with similar oncological or functional outcomes and better perioperative outcomes as compared to ORP. Being cost-effective and with comparable outcomes it is a suitable alternative to RRP in resource-limited settings.
Keywords:
3D Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy; 3D Laparoscopy vs. Open Prostatectomy; Carcinoma Prostate Surgery; Radical Prostatectomy; Robotic prostatectomy alternative
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: Annabelle Forsmark; Jacob Gehrman; Eva Angenete; Anders Bjartell; Ingela Björholt; Stefan Carlsson; Jonas Hugosson; Tom Marlow; Karin Stinesen-Kollberg; Johan Stranne; Anna Wallerstedt; Peter Wiklund; Ulrica Wilderäng; Eva Haglind Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Giovannalberto Pini; Tommy Nyberg; Maryam Derogar; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Anders Bjartell; Jonas Hugosson; Gunnar Steineck; Peter N Wiklund Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anna Wallerstedt; Stavros I Tyritzis; Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Stefan Carlsson; Johan Stranne; Ove Gustafsson; Jonas Hugosson; Anders Bjartell; Ulrica Wilderäng; N Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck; Eva Haglind Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2014-10-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anuar I Mitre; Mario F Chammas; José Eugênio A Rocha; Ricardo Jordão Duarte; Gustavo Xavier Ebaid; Flavio Trigo Rocha Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2013-03-03